+ + + + + + + + + + + + + BY SUSAN McCARTHY

why clone a sheep? Sheep already look alike. Rather than create more woolly doppelgängers, wouldn't you really rather clone your own adorable, formerly unique self?

Clones are just identical twins -- haven't you always wanted a twin? A younger twin, one you could give advice to? Clones don't step out of pods full-blown, they have to be raised, like any other baby, so clones will be several decades younger than the clonee.

There's your clone, genetically identical to you. The only difference will be upbringing (OK, maybe a little genetic manipulation so Clonito has 20-20), so the only chance Clonito has to be better than you is for the environment to be perfect. This time, no mistakes! Piano lessons! Sunscreen! Summer language school in Japan! No self-esteem-destroying intimate relationships with psycho control freaks in sophomore year!

You'll look in the mirror, you'll see crow's-feet, you'll rush out and pummel moisturizer into Clonito.

Of course discipline will be a problem. On the one hand, you'll have incredible moral authority because you know exactly what little Clonie Fae is going through. On the other hand, your significant other, who had no genetic input into Clonie Fae, is more likely to take a hands-off approach: "This is exactly what you do. I'm always trying to get you not to do this. Why would you expect Clonie Fae to be any different? If we'd cloned me this would not be an issue."

The Oedipal/Electra stuff will be strange too. If you feed young Me Myself Jr. the right stuff, he could end up taller. He'll always be showing off his abs. Since you'll know that he has the exact same DNA, the only reason he's such a hunk and you're such a schlub is that he works out and you don't -- and he's younger. And you gave him everything. But is he grateful? I think not.

Some people won't have these issues. If Saddam Hussein chooses to clone himself hundreds of times (and you can bet he's thinking about it), he can convince other people to raise the clones. If Michael Jackson decides to clone Diana Ross, he can afford a lot of nannies. (If you want an army of clones, it'll be just as hard as breeding any other army. And when was the last time you managed to pull that off?)

Still, most people are going to want to have children the traditional way -- children who combine the heritage of both parents. The only ones who won't will be arrogant sickos. Great! A generation of clones of arrogant sickos, raised by arrogant sickos! Wonder how they'll turn out?

The other way-new reproductive fad on the horizon is that of genetic manipulation: your own genes (or yours and your SO's) plus genes that some people think make for high test scores, entrepreneurial drive and Valhalla cheekbones. Genes to ward off arthritis, sickle-cell, alcoholism and knobby knees. There's bound to be something on sale that you want for your kid. (Pssst! Getcher curly red hair! Long life! Perfect pitch! Extra toes! -- Yeah, why not? Extra toes!)

Aside from the nasty repercussions of consumer recalls -- remember that gene that makes your kid 6-foot-6 and gives her a range of four octaves? Turns out it also makes her veer sharp right unpredictably in wet or windy road conditions and causes premature liver spots. Sorry. Aside from that, I submit, there are perils in a world where all the women look like Gwyneth Paltrow, Michelle Pfeiffer or Naomi Campbell and all the men look like Mel Gibson, Denzel Washington or Cary Grant.

It wouldn't just be boring. Monocultures are inherently risky. One new pest can wipe out the world's wheat crop when the wheat is all the same strain. And, if the latest flu virus turns out to be uniquely suited to topple Mel Gibson like a tipped cow, there goes a sixth of our population. Including everybody who knows how to fix motorcycles.

Sex exists for a reason, and it's not just recreational: Sex exists to mix up genes, to have a large supply of different DNA combinations -- so some people don't die of AIDS because they have different receptors on their white cells, or don't get carried off by malaria at an early age, or don't get incapacitating motion sickness when they go into space, or can resist the temptation to use the prefix "über."

So it would be a really dumb strategy for our species to simplify itself to clones of Mao and Madonna, or to standardized top-of-the-line mixtures of what current fashion says is the best combination of Mao, Madonna and Marilyn vos Savant. I know, I know, our species has a weakness for dumb strategies, but this is not the one likely to be our downfall. Our drive to reproduce is always likely to outpace our family-planning skills.

Sex does have that recreational aspect that tends to produce unplanned, uncloned children. As for planned children, most people have a sufficiently high opinion of their SOs to think mingling genes is a cute idea, at least at the beginning. Most members of the population will continue to be haphazard mixes of their parents' genetic material. From the point of view of species survival, that's a win. Of course those children may have to grow up with all the little Husseins and Rosses, the little arrogant sickos, the little Madonna-Maos, the little Clone-Claudes and LaClonas, but don't you get the feeling there's nothing new about that? You went to high school, right?
March 3, 1997

Susan McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in Smithsonian, Wired and Bitch. She is the co-author, with Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, of "When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Life of Animals."