Via Jim Fossett comes this op-ed by Neil Shubin in NYT about the variety of ways species have found to reproduce — and how that should make us cautious when talking about what’s “natural” in debates about cloning and other technologies. Here’s a snip:

Cloning is one of many mechanisms species use to survive in a dangerous world. Indeed, the diversity of reproductive strategies seen in animals staggers the imagination. Some reptiles do not determine sexes genetically, but rely on different incubation temperatures to determine the development of males and females. Other creatures can actually switch sexes during their lifetimes, being born male and developing as females. Still others can switch sexes based on behavioral cues in the social group. There is no one way that creatures start development, grow and form sexes there are many varied ways.

Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at conception, or over the proper structure of the family. Or, more recently, regarding the morality of cloning. Whether were talking about raising bigger cattle or growing life-saving organs or trying to live forever, both sides like to stress their abilities to judge what is natural. Judging from Komodo dragons, lizards and sharks, the answer seems to be that for reproduction, almost anything goes.

And that is the point. Biology is about variation. Without variation, the world would be static and unchangeable, and species would gradually disappear as they failed to meet challenges like changing climates and environments. So as we continue our very necessary debates over ethical issues, lets bear in mind that morality is a concept limited to our species. The natural world is a fuzzy place that doesnt always accommodate our decidedly human need to find cut-and-dried categories.