Any such disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the genetically engineered animals can breed, and would be discovered long before it posed any threat to the industry. It's certainly no worse than the problem of monoculture in the produce industry, in which genetic engineering would be a tremendous boon. We've already created numerous improvements on natural produce that could go a long way to curing malnutrition and starvation in the developing world, if people weren't seized by irrational fears concerning "frankenfoods".
I'm not worried about growing plants that are cloned, "frankenfoods", that to me is a no more threatening than hybrids and developing disease resistant strains. Though it does give me pause that cloned foods, deployed in millions of acres over and again, would encounter nature's variables and develop a problem. However, plants, food crops, are not complex organisms.
Animals are complex and limiting the gene pool by reproducing the same genetic code over and over, doesn't sound like a good idea. They would have to be charted over several lifetimes to in order observe if the gene pool selected would not develop genetic deficiencies/birth defects or be more prone to certain diseases. And even then, as you used the word monoculture, that is exactly what would result. Yes, I'm aware of Dolly the sheep. I'm not aware what number of generations she was been cloned to so far, but the unrestricted deployment of a few genetic lines, worries me.
Market capitalism relies on constant population growth for economic growth.
Some regions of the Earth are already overpopulated. Infinite growth of human populations cannot be sustained infinitely. Market capitalism is not a good enough reason to pursue it.
As above, any disease or deficiency can only spread as quickly as the afflicted humans can breed. Plus, there are enough people who would refuse such treatment to ensure sufficient control that such a disease or defect would never affect the whole population. This is one area where having multiple programs engineering different traits would be advantageous-- as long as different people are selecting for different traits and using different methods to achieve similar goals, genetic diversity is preserved.
As with animals, human clones would have to be charted for multiple lifetimes before the chosen genetic codes could be proven risk free and even then, living, complex, organisms are not impervious to nature's randomness. We are not mathematical equations that are guaranteed to give the same answer every time the same problem is worked. Exposure to random environmental factors alone, when living out in the world, could exploit an undetected genetic weakness.
Tobacco is a perfect
historical example. Some heavy users are never effected by it, but for others, it's poisonous. There is no rhyme or reason for that, at this time. Other toxins could prove just as lethal to a finite genetic code but it would be unknown until after the fact and potentially after they pass those traits down to any offspring were they to have children.
The point is, why increase the chances of this by reproducing the same person again and again?
I've already noted that until technical problems are solved, I am opposed to cloning full human beings.
The answers to these issues are the same as they would be for defective children conceived and born naturally.
No, they cannot be dealt with in the same manner. The circumstances are different. There are parents involved in natural procreation. Who functions as a clone's parents? Doctors? Are they adopted out? Put in a "foster" system. Who advocates for the child when there are no parents?
Further, what of the psychological impact?
I see the problem with old eugenics programs being that they were racist and coercive. If new eugenics programs are neither racist nor coercive, I have absolutely no objection to the idea that the human condition can be improved through selective breeding and genetic engineering. Indeed, I believe that enhancing the human species should be a top priority for any society that is capable of doing so. Better humans-- humans that are healthier and smarter than the baseline-- would lead to more productivity, better living conditions, and less drain on our welfare, healthcare, and corrections systems. If you're concerned that such human improvement would lead to the creation of a genetic caste system, you can always advocate, as I do, for genetic engineering to be subsidized by the government so that it is available to everyone who wants it.
Yes, I am afraid of a caste system. What of those who are not "better human beings"? What of those people who's parents find the very idea repulsive and choose to roll the genetic dice and are thereby deemed inferior due to their natural birth and unknown genetic quantities?
Forget the government owning the program. That might make it available to everyone, but what happens when these "better human beings" enter the population? Humanity is hard wired to sort out differences and elevate the more "desirable" amongst us. These genetically improved, bred for certain success people are pre-determined to be superior to those who weren't and therefore are in line for preferential treatment. Or, if bred, like slaves were for manual labor, or cerebral labor or their warrior instincts for armies and never given an opportunity to have the life they would choose, but exploited for their genetic traits.
I never take for granted that all humans operate benignly, for the greater good of humanity. Greed is all around us, having decimated our financial systems and recently made a profound environmental impact. The actions of a stupid drunk in Alaska 20 years ago is still effect that community. So when such awesome power over humanity is developed, I fear for its subversion and perversion.
If we have the capacity to provide greater genetic traits for our children, I believe that we have a moral obligation to do so, just as we have the moral obligation to provide them the best nutrition, the best healthcare, and the best education. It is part of a greater moral obligation to give our children the greatest possible opportunities in life.
Indeed and through genetic therapies, that is a possibility. Cloning human beings is more than providing our children with the greatest possible opportunities. It could be defining humans by their genetic "gifts".
Because we could potentially do it, doesn't mean we should. Life, in all it's forms is varied, random magnificent and yes even tragic sometimes. The presumption that we could exercise ultimate control over it every time, is hubris.