From: jeff davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 13:57:22 MST
Extropes,
--- Richard Steven Hack <richardhack@pcmagic.net>
wrote:
> I've never seen the point of cloning a human -i.e.,
> fully - anyway.
I can suggest two reasons--two of an unnumbered
multitude--for human cloning. The first is the same
as the reason for animal cloning: to reliably
reproduce valued/desirable traits.
Either for the love of the sport or the profit
potential, one might seek to clone Tiger Woods,
Michaels Jordan, Barry Bonds (insert sports superstar
of your choice here). This might be done by the
sports superstar him/herself, or by an entrepreneurial
third party.
Persons of demonstrated intellectual talent might be
cloned either for the value of their exceptional
contribution to society, or for the profit potential
(more likely, for both). Einstein, Von Neuman, Gauss,
Euler, Newton, Da Vinci, Bobby Fisher, etc.
(Hmmm,...Do you think traces of Euler, Newton, Da
Vinci DNA might still be found?)
Cloning--ie exactly reproducing a genomic duplicate of
specific individual--for desirable traits is a very
particular subset of the larger case of the creation
of "designer" people. It chooses the desired
characteristics in an identical, previously proven,
"package". The Michael Jordan Model clone will
logically and inevitably be associated with Michael
Jordan. In contrast, a genetically-designed human,
designed for comparable athletic skills, but lacking
the fully identical Michael Jordan genome, will be
just as thoroughly a 'designer' human, just a one-off
unique individual (absent precise copies) rather than
a clone.
The second reason for human cloning is identical to
the "reason" for having a child the conventional way.
Because you want to. Arbitratry personal choice.
Human whim. Impulse. But with a striking, RATIONAL
distinction.
At the risk of stating the obvious, child creation by
cloning has some clear differences from child creation
"the old fashioned" way. (Let's suspend judgement for
the moment regarding the risks associated with the
current state of cloning. Clearly, it's in its
infancy, and barely understood. Is there anyone who
doesn't accept that we have a ways to go in developing
the science, and the fulfilling compulsory requirement
of improving the technology so as to reach a level of
safety acceptable to social authorities?, a process to
be carried out through the time-honored vehicle of
animal models?) The major difference is choice.
Designer children versus biological lottery. And the
main objection to purposeful choice of
the-best-you-can-get, versus
cover-your-eyes-and-hope-for-the-best-(and-maybe-get-fucked),
is that man must not play god.
Now, this is the extropians list, so I could just stop
here, and sign off. But I'm going to add a gratuitous
little plum for the choir.
The destiny of intelligence in the universe--on our
little planet, human destiny--is to play god.
Fix the problem. Enhance. Transcend.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Ray Charles
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:43 MST