As far as I can tell likes & dislikes would be pretty much down to environment & personal experiances. If anyone has forgotten, twins are not that rare, but I think technically regarded as clones (I think, happy to be corrected). That said, twins are never exactly the same in their behaviors & tastes.

Meh, as for cloning humans, I think there are way too many of us already. Apart from that, diversity is one of the key principles of our survival to date. Take that away and we're totally screwed IMO. Start doing too much cloning and we become too similar. Once we're all 'perfect' (which I think is an impossibility), we are all prone to the same diseases, and the human population as a whole is weaker for it. Our diversity is one of the things that has served us so well in the past. e.g. strangely enough when the black plague hit London all those years back, I think there was some evidence that all the survivors had some similarity in their genes. That means that perhaps a portion of the population had a small advantage and survived. If we were all the same we may not be here right now. The idea repeats in nature too. Viruses run in strains, and only when we take a full course of anti-biotics do we kill then all. Take a half dose, and the strongest survive to create the next strain (of even stronger viruses).

To play devils advocate however, I do think there are a few valid times where cloning is justified in it's end. Where I come from there was a creature called a Tasmanian Tiger. This creature is now extinct because the of the blind stupidity of humans who believed it to be a threat to livestock. Turns out it actually couldn't care less about livestock, but that doesn't matter now. There is a slim chance that this create could one day be cloned from preserved embryos of the tiger and brought back into existence. For those creatures who solely owe their disappearance to us, I think it only fair that we try and right some of our blunders of the past.

My 2 cents

I actually did a presentation on this topic a few years ago. Personally, though I find cloning to be a very interesting and potentially useful (in some aspects) tool, using it to create the perfect human is just not ethical.

The main issue that I take with using cloning to modify humans, in any way, good or bad, is that there is so much potential to abuse that power. Not only would we be eliminating diversity and rendering ourselves outdated, but if the cloning tools and process got in the hands of the wrong person/people, it could theoretically be used to create a group, or, dare I say army, of genetically superior clones, who could in turn be easily persuaded (especially if that, too, was stressed in their DNA) to fight or advocate for the negative cause of their creators. Admittedly, it's not like they would be robots, they are still able to make their own decisions, but with enough altering it is highly possible that you could almost completely eliminate feelings of guilt, etc., that keep most humans in line.

Whether you believe in God or evolution, cloning would be interfering with the natural development process of the human race, and we have no idea what the effects of that would be in the long term. With many people with very similar genes (something that cloning could be used to select for), the spread of disease could be disastrous and incredibly difficult to control.

I believe that if we can draw a fine line between using the process of cloning to create medical treatments or aides and/or discovering more information about the human genome, versus using cloning to physically create humans, then that first option would be permissible. Cloning has considerable potential to aid doctors in developing new methods for organ transplant, nervous system regeneration, and other important medical advances. It can also help the medical world to better understand genetic diseases, miscarriages, and birth defects. If cloning was used solely for those purposes, it could be very successful, but using it to alter humans is just not right.

All in all, I think we have other interesting medical technologies which could be used for some of the aforementioned purposes of cloning, and in all cases I would experiment first with those. If used, cloning for the purpose of human alteration, even if it would be improvement, should not be permitted as it is not ethical, but smaller-scale cloning for other medical purposes (listed above) could be permissible.

In my opinion cloning should never be done - whether with animals or people. I highly doubt that any government would allow it in the foreseeable, except perhaps to create some sort of... super soldier. I know it's a bit 'geeky', but I really can see governments trying to find a way to win more wars.

No human is meant to be perfect, and I hope that it will stay that way.

This might sound a little geeky but have you heard of Stargate SG-1 and the Asguard. Well they cloned themselves trying to make themselves live longer and be closer to perfect. Also when they cloned themselves they transferred their thoughts and memories to the clone so they could continue their work. In the end they couldnt reproduce any longer because they cloned themselves so much that they no long have reproductive organs. They thought they could remove them to make the process easier. So if we start cloning for the best human we might get ourselves into the same mess. Man it would suck to not be able to make babies. Next example is Gatika (not sure if i spelled it right) in that movie parents could choose what features and intellect of their unborn child. It made a 2 tier society where the god borns couldnt get higher jobs or anything like that. Cloning could be good for body part replacement for people like people needing a heart transplant or lost an arm or leg from war. We would still have issues with people saying that it was alive and had a soul and shouldnt be grown like that. But no issue with stem-cell research mumbo-jumbo.