The increasing trend toward bettering the human existence through artificial improvement is leading us to a new age in human evolution, the age of the cyborg. With humans becoming more machine-like and machines becoming more human-like, the prospect of a being that is both human and machine seems imminent. Many people argue that humankind is ethically obligated to treat cyborgs as if they are human. The same can be said about genetically engineered beings, such as clones. They feel that by being part human, they are deserving of the same rights and privileges as an actual human. But are we really ethically obligated to treat cyborgs and clones as if they are human? The answer is one that causes much debate throughout scientific and ethical communities.  The integration of synthetic life forms into society presents many ethical concerns, which must be dealt with in the near future. Two of the major ethical concerns brought about by the introduction of synthetic life forms into society include whether or not these life forms are slaves and whether or not humans are attempting to play God by creating such life forms.

Creation Versus Procreation
Before we can discuss the ethical problems that arise from the integration of synthetic life forms into society, we must first make a distinction between a being that is synthetic and one that is human. Synthetic life forms such as cyborgs and clones are nothing more than a product of humankind. Like any other product of humankind, their rights and purpose are at the disposal of their creator. One can argue that all people are products of humankind since all children are born, or produced, by other humans. However, a distinction presents itself. There is a difference between what is created and what is procreated. Human offspring are not created; they are procreated. Procreation exists to ensure the existence of the human race. Creation, on the other hand, exists to better the existence of the human race, not to insure it. Thus, we can exist without creation, but we can't exist without procreation. By referencing synthetic life forms as creations rather than procreations, one can see that they are not human. Thus, we are not ethically obligated to treat a product of our own creation in the same manner as we treat other humans and ourselves. But nonetheless, synthetic life forms are sentient beings, and the integration of sentient beings into a society will no doubt bring with it a bombardment of ethical dilemmas.

Are Replicants Slaves?
One ethical problem that arises from the introduction of synthetic beings into society is the issue of slavery. It is very probable that humans will one day create synthetic life forms to act as a labor force, as is the case in the movie Blade Runner. In the movie a race of humanoid cyborgs called replicants is created to act as the labor force on off-world mining operations. Many people would consider the use of the replicants an act of slavery, when in fact it is just the opposite. When one thinks of slavery, he or she is inclined to picture a line of ragged, starving toilers being forced into sheer exhaustion by a domineer with a bullwhip. It is true that this image is one that is closely associated with the act of slavery, but it fails to define what really constitutes slavery. It is relatively easy to compare the replicants in Blade Runner to the slaves of the American Civil War. However, they are radically different. Replicants are created for the sole purpose of slavery, while the Civil War slaves were not. Therefore, the replicants are nothing more than a species developed for the purpose of slavery. Slavery is their intended use and is the meaning of their life. If we are to free them from slavery, we strip away the whole foundation for which they are created. Perhaps then it is easier to compare replicants to a species other than human. Throughout history, humans have bred horses for the specific purpose of providing transportation, energy, and recreation. It is plausible to suggest that humans have enslaved horses, but in reality we have only breed them to serve us. Therefore, we can justify the use of replicants to work in mines not as a form of enslavement, but rather a fulfillment of their existence.

However, even by justifying the use of replicants and other bred creatures such as horses as a fulfillment of their existence, we leave one stone unturned. Is it ethically justifiable to breed something into an existence of servitude? I mentioned earlier that the slaves of the Civil War shouldn't be compared to the replicants of Blade Runner, but what about the people who breed or create the slaves or the replicants? Both the slave breeders and the replicant creators both realize consequent of their actions. Therefore many people feel that the breeders and creators should be ethically responsible for the life form. However, I feel that the breeders and creators are only a product of the demand of society. Even if using replicants is wrong, the blame shouldn't fall on the shoulder of the creator, but rather on society itself.

Playing God or Playing Human
Another ethical dilemma that accompanies the integration of synthetic life forms is the matter of playing God. Are we as humans fit to create life? Many people argue that humans should not create life other than their own offspring. I feel that humans should pursue the creation of synthetic life, not hide from it. It is in our nature to explore the unknown and continue trying to better our existence using the technology and resources we have available. We have been given the power to reason, and through our reasoning we have the ability to expand both our lives and our minds. Thus, we are not playing God; we are simply playing human. Our minds are what make us human, and by limiting our minds, we are denying the rights that were bestowed upon us. So should we simply limit ourselves and stop a new form of science still in its infancy, or should we continue to try and improve humanity through science and technology? I feel we should continue to improve humanity using whatever technology we have available. But choosing that path has its drawbacks. Sometimes we fail to see the potential problems that will accompany our great technological endeavors. Nuclear energy is one example of a potential technological nightmare that resulted from humankind's optimism for the unknown. But even though humans sometimes disregard the potential downside to technology, I still feel that the formation of synthetic life is a worthwhile pursuit.

The integration of synthetic life forms into our society is raising many ethical questions. A crossroads is approaching in the evolution of humankind. The technology to improve the human existence is shining overhead like a blanket of infinite stars in the sky of the future. Much as ship navigators of old once used stars to guide their voyages at sea, we must choose whether or not to follow the stars of technology. They are there, burning brightly above our heads, growing larger with the passing of time. Soon humankind must choose. We must choose either to follow the stars, using them as a guide to shore or remain at sea, fending for ourselves. If we choose to stay at sea, humankind will surely drown in the errors of our own existence.