The He states cloning represents "the desire to exert our will over every aspect of our surroundings." I believe we were put on the earth to be stewards and keep the earth, not to dominate every aspect of it.
(Something else) then disputes the idea as he sees every advance in human history as part of a "technological project", and asks the reader where would we be without the men who "exerted their will" over surroundings?
Yes, that is a valid argument, but tampering with life is not something I want scientists interfering with.
It is not our place as humans to create and destroy life.
Similarly, the person cloned would feel drawn to compare him or herself with the clone.
Even if clones would never meet each other or the person cloned (4), the mere knowledge that genetic counterparts to themselves existed would be likely to give both the clones and the original a sense of incompleteness, and prevent them, at least to some degree, from concentrating on their separate lives.
Finally, I return to discussion of ways in which the two procedures diverge.
Genetic similarity and human identity An objection often raised to cloning is one which does not apply to IVF, concerning the effect of genetic similarity on the way we see ourselves, and are seen by other people.
The physical or, for that matter, the mental similarity of two individuals does not make them one and the same individual.
However, similarity, if carried to extremes, can have harmful effects on the individuals concerned.