Arrowman

* shrug * Same responsibility and qualification they have in all other areas - to, on behalf of society, define a common set of rules under which we wish to live. This includes regulating certain behaviours and actions. Granted too many of our legislators are "unqualified" in the sense that they are too often persuaded by noisy minorities and in particular noisy religious minorities, and some of then have trouble separating theur personal moral codes from what should be legislated for all people, but still, that's the way it's supposed to work, at least.

jayh

They would be more qualified than the scientists and scientifically trained ethicists who actually understand the issues? The ONLY qualification of legislator is the ability to win an election. I find it appalling that that is more of a qualification than a Phd and years of experience in a field.

Generally when they get in over their heads, whether in technology, economics, (even internet 'regulation') etc. they profoundly muck things up.

Jay

Doubting Didymus

A note for those engaged in debate over human evolution and cloning. Remember that evolution is non directional, proceeding towards greater fitness in an environmental context, and NOT neccesarily towards anything "better".

With this in mind, the question of whether cloning will "stop" evolution should be seen in a different light, for without any knowledge of what we are going to evolve into, we can not be certain if we even want to continue evolving. That is to say, in the eyes of natural selection, it may be that we would be more "fit" if we lost our higher neural capacities and became warlike, agressive apes (um...).

We may not want what natural selection would have in store for us, and there is practically no way to predict what that might be.

AnthonyAdams45

One more reason for preferring monarchy.