At 06:43 PM 5/11/01 +0930, Emlyn pointed to:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/sports/11GENE.html
I find the following a typical bizarre pseudo-argument.
===========
There appears to be little fear that human cloning will have a significant
effect in sport. If say, Michael Johnson were cloned, the result would
almost certainly not be the same world record-setter as the original,
researchers say, because environmental, nutritional and motivational
factors also play significant roles in developing athletes.
"If I'm the clone of Michael Johnson, I've got to bend myself into all
sorts of shapes to run, because genetically that's what I'm destined to
be," Dr. Friedmann said. "I run and run and run, and I can't ever get
anywhere. Then what am I? I'm a Michael Johnson who can't run. That's a
nobody. That must be a crushing experience to
learn you're not what you're genetically destined to be."
===================
I agree with the general moral sentiment, and that cloning will seldom
yield a xerox copy, partly due to stochastic developmental cascades, party
because of the factors listed in the 1st par. BUT having allowed this, how
likely is the scenario in the 2nd? From infancy you are given this (perhaps
soul-destroying) enhanced environment to make you MJ Mark II, and even so
you *can't ever get anywhere. Then what am I?* What indeed? A proof that
god intervenes deliberately to turn one twin into a nebbish just to spite
impious cloners? This is question-begging of a remarkable order, I reckon.
It might be true of an Einstein, of course, since it's surely harder to
replicate the unknowable experiences of a genius, and the multiple genes
involved in creative intelligence presumably offer vastly more stochastic
pathways to go haring off in different ways.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:04 MDT