Mickey 17: A Legal and Ethical Examination of Human Cloning and the Dangers of Extremist Leadership

Bong Joon-ho’s Mickey 17 is a philosophical and politically charged yet satirically humorous science fiction film that explores themes of identity, human dignity, and the ethical implications of cloning. Adapted from Edward Ashton’s novel Mickey7, the film follows Mickey Barnes (played by Robert Pattinson), an “Expendable” tasked with undertaking suicidal missions in an interstellar colonization effort. With each death, he is regenerated as a new clone, retaining the memories of his predecessors. However, when Mickey 17 returns to find that he has been replaced by Mickey 18, the film spirals into a compelling narrative about self-worth, bodily autonomy, and the legal status of clones.

Ranking - ★★★☆☆

The Ethical Quandary of Human Cloning

The film’s central conflict—the infinite replaceability of an individual—raises profound ethical questions about the moral status of clones. Mickey 17 serves as a cautionary tale against the unchecked use of human cloning, aligning with real-world ethical debates. As noted in bioethics discourse, reproductive cloning is widely condemned due to the severe psychological, social, and physiological risks it entails. If applied to humans, cloning could introduce an unacceptably high likelihood of embryonic loss and birth defects, making it ethically indefensible.

Beyond physical risks, cloning challenges fundamental philosophical notions of personhood and identity. Mickey’s experience mirrors concerns about the loss of individuality in a society that commodifies human life. His repeated deaths and rebirths highlight the unsettling idea that an individual’s unique existence could be reduced to a mere sequence of replaceable iterations. This critique aligns with concerns about eugenics—the historical pursuit of "improving" humanity by selecting for desirable traits. If cloning were used to create superior beings, it could violate fundamental human rights by fostering a caste system that undermines human dignity, freedom, and equality.

Legal Implications: Are Clones Human in the Eyes of the Law?

One of the most provocative aspects of Mickey 17 is its implicit challenge to the legal framework surrounding personhood. If a clone retains the memories and personality of its predecessor, does it hold the same legal rights as a naturally born human? Mickey 17 and Mickey 18’s simultaneous existence creates an ethical and legal dilemma—who holds the right to his identity? The film offers a dystopian vision of a world where cloning operates in a legal gray zone, enabling powerful entities to exploit clones without granting them autonomy.

The film suggests that without strict ethical oversight, cloned individuals could be relegated to a subclass, lacking fundamental rights and existing solely as tools for their creators' benefit. This concern is especially relevant given that bioethical discussions the potential exploitation in the procurement of embryos and genetic material for cloning research.

Extremist Leadership and the Dangers of Dehumanization

At the heart of Mickey 17 lies a scathing critique of authoritarian leadership. Mark Ruffalo’s character, Kenneth Marshall, embodies the dangers of extremist ideology, as he envisions a colonized planet purified of "undesirable" elements. His supremacist vision echoes historical instances where extremist leaders sought to engineer societies based on ideological purity. The film thus serves as an allegory for the real-world consequences of unchecked political power, where scientific advancements can become tools of oppression rather than progress.

This theme draws direct parallels to Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Stanley Kubrick’s satirical masterpiece about Cold War brinkmanship. Both films explore how technology, when placed in the hands of ideologically extreme figures, can lead to catastrophic consequences. In Dr. Strangelove, characters like General Ripper and Dr. Strangelove himself represent the absurdity of extremist militarism, where rigid dogma overrides rational decision-making. Similarly, Mickey 17 highlights the dangers of allowing powerful individuals to dictate the fate of human existence based on ideological purity rather than ethical considerations.

Conclusion: A Dark Reflection on Science, Law, and Power

Mickey 17 is not just an entertaining, satirically humorous science fiction —it is a haunting meditation on the ethical and legal ramifications of cloning, as well as the perils of extremist governance. By drawing from real-world bioethical debates and mirroring the political satire of Dr. Strangelove, the film forces audiences to confront urgent moral dilemmas. What defines a person? Can technology be truly neutral, or is it inevitably shaped by the ideologies of those in power? As we move closer to an era where genetic engineering and artificial reproduction become increasingly viable, Mickey 17 serves as a stark warning: scientific progress, if left unchecked by ethical and legal constraints, can lead to a future where humanity itself is expendable.

Director: Bong Joon Ho

Writers: Bong Joon Ho, Edward Ashton

Stars: Robert Pattinson, Steven Yeun, Naomi Ackie, Mark Ruffalo

Trailer: