I've heard about this movie for a long time. In the jurisprudence class, the teacher said it explored the legal issues surrounding human cloning. I finally found the time to watch it today, and now my mood is a bit complicated.
The next words only represent my thoughts at the moment.
The value stance of the film is clear. The black mercenary responsible for the killing finally chose to help clone Jordan, which means that the movie tells us that everyone has the right to live, which is sacred and born.
But back to the question of human cloning, do we really need to be so generous? Human curiosity and endless exploration may not be far away when the day when human clones truly come. So, a natural question comes to us: If they also have thinking, consciousness, and feelings, then what are they, and what is their host status in reality?
I think it's better to think about it from another angle: Suppose the earth is invaded by aliens, aliens are a group of superpowers who have the appearance of others. So, how does the earth treat them with thinking, consciousness, love and hate?
I think the answer is about to come out. Non-my family, its heart must be different. The person in charge of the cloning project in the movie said, who can cure childhood leukemia? Just me and God! This arrogance is silently criticized by the film's ending. But is it really the arrogant scientist who wants to solve the problem of diseases within the human race? The truly arrogant ones should be those who think we can be generous to nature, the universe, everything! Humans have not had a good life until now. Why do they think they are equal to nature? (Not to mention that human cloning is also a product of technology?)
I can say this sentence, and it even impacts the education I received since I was a child. But think about it, when we hunt animals, why are we not generous? When we burn forests, why not be generous? The logic of pollution after treatment actually reflects the containment of the developed over the undeveloped. When we say all beings are equal, are we really talking about ecosystems?
The balance of the ecosystem is a matter for scientists. I also believe that human technology can make human life better.
The problem goes further, what are we talking about when we say "people". Is it the individuals who are delivered from the womb, or is it the consciousness that those individuals possess? How do we distinguish between humans and non-humans?
Hitler tried it. He defined the Jews as inferior and culled them. How is this behavior different from culling clones?
But what I'm trying to say is, let this one line -- nature and technology -- be the bottom line. The line that separates humans from non-humans should stay below race and above technological output.
View more about The Island reviews
