From: Tet Far Jason Soon (tsoon@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Tue Oct 27 1998 - 17:24:50 MST
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Max More wrote:
> Yes, it's a fictional scenario, and Pizulli cited J.B.S. Haldane. The point
> is not that no one would ever suggest this. The point is that it's ridulous
> to oppose cloning on the grounds that it will lead to a situation where the
> government produces humans with no legs, raises them for two decades in
> confinement, brainwashing them so that they will not want to do anything
> other than go into space, and that we will not object to this whole
> process.
I too find this argument laughable and don't see how Damien could object
to Max characterising it as such. It has to be kept in perspective that
identical twins are clones. If such arguments are applicable to clones
then we should also start taking seriously the possibility that
governments might keep a store of mothers predisposed to give birth to
identical twins and using the progeny for slavery.
If genetics is important then the rich are likely to succeed in cloning
the brightest but at the same time this argument cuts both ways. Rich
cloners would be in danger of losing genetic diversity. If something new
came up in the environment they would be the first to go. If genetics is
not that important (and I personally am of this view) then whatever it
doesn't really matter if more of the rich tried to clone their elite.
Regards
Jason Soon
His fantasy involves slavery because the proposal is to raise the
> child for this purpose and not to allow them any other option. To suggest
> that we ban cloning because it might lead to all this is ludicrous. If the
> government started a program like this, we'd have a lot more to worry about
> than cloning. I'm really surprised that you don't see how desperate an
> argument this one is.
>
> >>* "America doesn't want cloning". Cloning will produce an aristocracy and
> >>America is all about doing away with aristocracies.
> >
> >This is all too easy to project. If cloning is made prohibitively
> >expensive, only the rich (already a de facto aristocracy) will have the
> >option. Instead of taking their chances in the reshuffle lottery, some of
> >them might choose to clone the brightest, most aggressively successful and
> >most beautiful of their number.
>
> So we'd better also ban private education, educational trips by wealthy
> parents for their children, make it illegal for wealthy parents to pass on
> their wealth, and in fact take away any wealth above the average. Silly me,
> here I was thinking that America was based on the pursuit of life, liberty,
> and happiness, not on banning anything that might give someone an
> advantage. If this argument were any good at all, it would be an argument
> not for banning cloning but for funding widespread access to cloning.
>
> Max
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Max More, Ph.D.
> more@extropy.org (soon also: <max@maxmore.com>)
>
>
> http://www.maxmore.com
> Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies
> President, Extropy Institute:
> exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:42 MST