Bill
Gifford, Nathan F wrote:
> Sodom wrote:
>
> > I know you are joking about the slavery issue - but I think that a
> lot of people
> > think that a clone means a duplicate. Although this is true
> genetically, a clone
> > is much more a "twin" than anything else, and a twin is a unique
> person.
>
> The difference between my twin and my clone is that my parents
> incurred the costs for delivery and educating my twin. A clone seems more
> like a product then a person ... Note this is certainly a nice proof for the
> existence of memes. It seems that depending on how you spin the production
> a clone could have the same human rights as a tissue sample or it could be
> an actual human being. This would be especially true after we can grow the
> clone in a vat ala Brave New World.
>
> > I am not at all threatened by the concept of clones and cloning. I
> am threatened by
> > the concepts that:
>
> >1> clones are somehow less than people -
> I would argue that depending on the circumstances for the origin of
> the clone it could actually be more than most people. <see point 3>
> > 2> Clones dont have "God given" souls.
> Exactly. Clones are the counter example for the concept of
> "inalienable rights". Imagine a "build a clone kit" that you could buy at
> Walmart - you would replicate DNA taken from say cells from your cheek.
> Then you would embed that DNA in an artificially produced egg. Finally
> you'd place the egg in your clone-a-matic which I can imagine looking a lot
> like a bread maker. (Actually you'd probably just put your starting cells
> in your clone-a-matic). In nine-months you'd have your clone - perhaps
> there would be an entire service industry devoted to raising your clone
> depending on what you wanted from it. If it were just an organ bank then
> you'd pay a nominal fee for clone maintainance - sort of like a garage. The
> point of these places would be to keep your clone in a tabula rasa state so
> the clients don't have any nasty ethical problems like you're talking about.
> On the other hand, for the busy executive who wants to enjoy parenting
> without the nasty emotional and financial burdens of marriage what could be
> better than a clone?
>
> > 3> The rich will use cloning as a tool over the poor
>
> NO clones would be good for the poor :=). One of the things the
> poor could be best at would be caring for clones ... hasn't that always been
> the function of the poor to care for our children, our elderly, and our
> livestock? Industrialization took the poor away from their natural function
> and placed them in factories. Biotechnology is allowing them to return to
> their natural state.
>
> My point here is that social stratifications atomize humanity by
> creating the distinction between us and them. A really succesful memetic
> engineer <ala the bad popes, or Ronald Reagan's handlers> tries to apply
> these stratifications recursively ... with the engineer being at the center
> of the layers of "usness". It's easy to imagine a military-biotechnology
> complex built around some sort of biological elite - ala the movie Gattaca.
> Of course the original basis for the elite would be economic because it
> would take capital to establish genetic superiority.
>
> >Just my off the cuff thoughts.
>
> Me2.