Hi Kira! Thanks for bringing these questions to us.
We're going to answer every question you have, but a lot of it links together, so if you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask!
Cloning was done by the early 21st century with people's pets. Those with the financial means would pay large sums of money to have their pets cloned, though they found that their pets weren't the same. Essentially, the call of nature versus nurture (in the way of nurture affecting nature) came in here - could a pet reproduced by cloning really be the same pet as the one someone lost? There were a lot of ethical concerns that came with it, but not as many as there would be with humans. In the early 21st century, scientists around the world - sans the United States - began to look into editing the genomes of human embryos. As editing these embryos was several steps off human cloning, there were a lot of ethical concerns raised. Still, countries like China and Russia continued to push research forward, undaunted by public concerns (unless their research went public - but much of that would be swept under the rug by 2511). Needless to say, early research into cloning was also limited because of religious concerns that are no longer relevant by 2511, though Prompto would come across references to the moral and ethical concerns related vaguely to "god" in his research.
Around the same time, scientists separately developed procedures to clone human organs. Cloning organs is an entirely different process, independent of cloning humans/animals, perfected by the 2050s. It was, however, extremely expensive, and there were still a lot of ethical debates, largely coming back to whether it was socially acceptable to clone human organs and how that related to humanity? What makes a human? Should humans be looking to prolong their own lives in this way? There were also financial issues, as universal health care was not yet a thing by the 2050s. Still, organ cloning was a way to approach many of the concerns and ethics in human cloning without creating an actual conscious life. A baby, even with the same genetic code, would not have the same life experiences as the man or woman that was cloned. With the process to clone organs perfected, it was time to streamline it and make it available to everyone.
All this culminated alongside the production of fully sentient AIs. While humans played god with human embryos, moving toward developing clones, they did the same with AIs. As far as anyone knows, no humans were cloned before the start of the AI war in 2095. Whether that's true or not is unknown. Any records surrounding it wouldn't be publicly available, as well as any of the corporations that would have funded the research. Most of this research would have been done at universities and privately funded labs, there is very little evidence that remains in an effort to erase the ugly history of humans playing god.
In fact, the information Prompto would come across would be about these debates behind human cloning and whether humans should be cloning anyone - human or animals - and how this debate evolved over time. The belief that organ cloning is a separate in practice from human cloning (and most animal cloning, for that matter) would be the general consensus. Life is precious and should be preserved, and organ cloning was perfected because it would no longer utilize developing organs inside of animals (as has been explored in our modern society). The perfection of these techniques involve knowing that the body wouldn't reject the newly transmitted organ because there would be no risk inherent in needing medication for immunosuppression. Animal cloning was halted alongside human cloning because of the same inherent consciousness, as well as the fact that this would involve bringing a life into the world. Not only would the creature need to live and breathe, but they would need to develop within the cloning process (and cloning, even in the future, still requires any kind of animal to develop in the standard way for its biology - any "speeding up" physical development would only cause problems with their biological makeup). That said - while animal cloning has been "halted," a lot of fish used for food in the world are a result of genetic engineering.
Many of these debates came to a climax by the mid-2100s a couple decades after the AI war ended. After outlawing AIs, legislators turned a more discerning eye to whether humans should continue to play god with cloning and other methods of biological replication. Was it ethical to bring a copy of a human life into the world? With the development of the neural implants, it was further considered questionable, as various (now unknown) companies attempted to develop technology through which human consciousness could be transferred.
By the early 2200s, human cloning was ruled illegal by the United Nations. The issue was that the early law was very broad: all scientists were told to halt any and all genetic engineering and reproduction. That involved animals, human organs, and more. Lobbyists pushed for a more clearly defined policy, which meant that they wanted to look at how this legislature couldn't prevent the perpetuity of human life. Ultimately, legislators agreed that genetic engineering and editing of the human embryo during early stages could be done to ensure that the life at the end would not carry now preventable genetic diseases. In the same turn, they approved limited animal cloning - fish and little else - and reopened the doors for opportunities involving organ cloning, which is now common by 2511.
As for the different cities, all of the laws would be the same. Mandates like the AI or cloning would all be passed down through the United Nations. Prompto would find nothing different around the world.
no subject
We're going to answer every question you have, but a lot of it links together, so if you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask!
Cloning was done by the early 21st century with people's pets. Those with the financial means would pay large sums of money to have their pets cloned, though they found that their pets weren't the same. Essentially, the call of nature versus nurture (in the way of nurture affecting nature) came in here - could a pet reproduced by cloning really be the same pet as the one someone lost? There were a lot of ethical concerns that came with it, but not as many as there would be with humans. In the early 21st century, scientists around the world - sans the United States - began to look into editing the genomes of human embryos. As editing these embryos was several steps off human cloning, there were a lot of ethical concerns raised. Still, countries like China and Russia continued to push research forward, undaunted by public concerns (unless their research went public - but much of that would be swept under the rug by 2511). Needless to say, early research into cloning was also limited because of religious concerns that are no longer relevant by 2511, though Prompto would come across references to the moral and ethical concerns related vaguely to "god" in his research.
Around the same time, scientists separately developed procedures to clone human organs. Cloning organs is an entirely different process, independent of cloning humans/animals, perfected by the 2050s. It was, however, extremely expensive, and there were still a lot of ethical debates, largely coming back to whether it was socially acceptable to clone human organs and how that related to humanity? What makes a human? Should humans be looking to prolong their own lives in this way? There were also financial issues, as universal health care was not yet a thing by the 2050s. Still, organ cloning was a way to approach many of the concerns and ethics in human cloning without creating an actual conscious life. A baby, even with the same genetic code, would not have the same life experiences as the man or woman that was cloned. With the process to clone organs perfected, it was time to streamline it and make it available to everyone.
All this culminated alongside the production of fully sentient AIs. While humans played god with human embryos, moving toward developing clones, they did the same with AIs. As far as anyone knows, no humans were cloned before the start of the AI war in 2095. Whether that's true or not is unknown. Any records surrounding it wouldn't be publicly available, as well as any of the corporations that would have funded the research. Most of this research would have been done at universities and privately funded labs, there is very little evidence that remains in an effort to erase the ugly history of humans playing god.
In fact, the information Prompto would come across would be about these debates behind human cloning and whether humans should be cloning anyone - human or animals - and how this debate evolved over time. The belief that organ cloning is a separate in practice from human cloning (and most animal cloning, for that matter) would be the general consensus. Life is precious and should be preserved, and organ cloning was perfected because it would no longer utilize developing organs inside of animals (as has been explored in our modern society). The perfection of these techniques involve knowing that the body wouldn't reject the newly transmitted organ because there would be no risk inherent in needing medication for immunosuppression. Animal cloning was halted alongside human cloning because of the same inherent consciousness, as well as the fact that this would involve bringing a life into the world. Not only would the creature need to live and breathe, but they would need to develop within the cloning process (and cloning, even in the future, still requires any kind of animal to develop in the standard way for its biology - any "speeding up" physical development would only cause problems with their biological makeup). That said - while animal cloning has been "halted," a lot of fish used for food in the world are a result of genetic engineering.
Many of these debates came to a climax by the mid-2100s a couple decades after the AI war ended. After outlawing AIs, legislators turned a more discerning eye to whether humans should continue to play god with cloning and other methods of biological replication. Was it ethical to bring a copy of a human life into the world? With the development of the neural implants, it was further considered questionable, as various (now unknown) companies attempted to develop technology through which human consciousness could be transferred.
By the early 2200s, human cloning was ruled illegal by the United Nations. The issue was that the early law was very broad: all scientists were told to halt any and all genetic engineering and reproduction. That involved animals, human organs, and more. Lobbyists pushed for a more clearly defined policy, which meant that they wanted to look at how this legislature couldn't prevent the perpetuity of human life. Ultimately, legislators agreed that genetic engineering and editing of the human embryo during early stages could be done to ensure that the life at the end would not carry now preventable genetic diseases. In the same turn, they approved limited animal cloning - fish and little else - and reopened the doors for opportunities involving organ cloning, which is now common by 2511.
As for the different cities, all of the laws would be the same. Mandates like the AI or cloning would all be passed down through the United Nations. Prompto would find nothing different around the world.