From: Reality (reality@netexpress.net)
Date: Mon Mar 31 1997 - 14:33:41 MST
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 ShawnJ99@aol.com wrote:
["]U. Sov wrote that I wrote the following:
["]
["]<< >On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 ShawnJ99@aol.com wrote:
["] >
["] >I would say that they would both be accountable for past actions
["] >(before cloning), so they should both be put on trial
["] >together. >>
["]
["]>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
["]>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
["]>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
["]
["]>For serious offenses, prison with the option of assisted suicide is the
["]>most humane thing to do.
["]
["]>As for neural modifications, I would doubt that
["]>they would be effective, without destroying the victims personality.
["]
["]For the record, it appeared that I was being quoted as saying all the above,
["]but in fact, those were someone else's responses to things which I had said.
["] Here are my responses to U.Sov.'s final comments:
["]
["]>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
["]>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
["]>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
["]
["]>Cloning is giving birth to a life form.
["]>Must I give up half of what I own to a child not yet born?
["]
["]I would say that, in the case of complete and perfect replication (intact
["]with memories), not just regular cloning, then the copy is in fact just as
["]much the original as was the original at the time of the copy. Thus, it
["]would be inaccurate to say it is "a child not yet born". If you walk into a
["]duplication chamber of some type, and knowingly copy yourself, the "you" that
["]comes out of the side marked "the copy", will be no less the person who
["]originally walked into the duplication chamber than the person who comes out
["]of the side marked "the original". It's not like a photo copying machine,
["]where there is a 15% degradation in quality. It is 100% the original. I
["]think the question of "who's who" loses meaning in the debate. The fact is
["]you slit into two pieces (seemingly).
["]
I agree entirely. If however, you clone a body and not the mind, then the
clone should be treated as a new person, with no accountability at the
time of its creation.
["]I would like to furthur one of my original comments which few people have
["]picked up upon. The question of "punishment". The only form of punishment I
["]think to be valid is to have the "criminal" make restitution to the best of
["]his/her/its ability, then to work on changing the original "flaw" which
["]caused the crime. Remember, I speak only of real crimes, not socially
["]imagined ones (rampant in the imaginations of many). To simply "punish"
["]someone causes no net benefit to anyone, but is rather a form of revenge. I
["]see no purpose in prisons at all. Either do as I suggest, or impliment a
["]death penalty. I opt for the prior. If someone is truely "beyond help", if
["]there is such a thing, then either hold them in a special labor camp until we
["]can neurally restructure them, or put them into cryo-stasis until that time.
["] This would be the most logical and "humane" thing to do. If anyone has
["]anything to add, please do so.
["]
The purpose of prisons should not be to "punish" anyone. The purpose of
prisons is to protect people from dangerous criminals. I do not advocate
the death penalty either, however if they want to die, the option for
assisted suicide should be there. Labor in prison could be used as a way
to work off the debt to the victimized party, if possible. Voluntary
neural restructuring would not be objectionable.
["]In response to another statement:
["]>As for neural modifications, I would doubt that
["]>they would be effective, without destroying the victims personality.
["]
["]>That's the point, to give them a new personality through brain-washing.
["]>It is being done.
["]
["]I don't think neural restructuring would destroy the original person. I'm
["]only speaking of eliminating the particular characteristic which is harmful
["](pleasure in killing, raping, stealing, etc.). It would be the best thing
["]anyone could do for the person. It involves less force than would killing
["]the person. Force is not to be used EXCEPT in self defense or preventing an
["]"insane" person from doing furthur harm. 'Til next time, Shawn Johnson.
["]
Reality
"...And you know they'll never find us, and they'll leave us alone, and if
we just keep on talking then we'll still make it home."
- Orbital, "The Box"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:19 MST