From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 08:37:03 MDT
In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:47:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lcorbin@ricochet.net writes:
<< Mitch evidently tried to answer my question (or I
should say our question, since several others have
also asked) "Why should the original perish?", but
I still don't get it. >>
Its not a matter of should(s), so much as its a matter of deciding what is
most important. If there is a critical, human need for copies, existing in
the same space-time, then by all means, replicate! But why should copies be
a primary goal, if there is no need, and the original is healthy, and there
are perhaps, precautions taken, beforehand, in the event of death?
Otherwise, why 'clone' in the 1st place, Lee?
Lets step back and ask, why copy somebody in the first place, if not to
preserve a person's life and memories, and personality? Until we hit a
technological level in the galaxy (hand-waving here), what viable good is
achieved by zillions of copies? If, individuals wish to travel the universe
(why would replica human bodies be the primary choice)? I could see copies
being an option. Why use copied human bodies, why not copied human
personalities, loaded onto interstellar craft?
I am more focused on the philosophical notion that post mortem survival is
best served by pattern identity theory. When the pattern(s) diverge, the
original remains the original, and the copies, end up being completely
different people, given enough time.
You need not agree, Lee; however I hope this clears up my position on this.
In my hierarchy of needs, if I had my 'druthers', I'd druther have practical
immortality then post-mortem existence, multiple, nonlinear, noncontiguous,
clones. Realistically, we'll be lucky indeed, if we even are able to achieve
clones.
-mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:51 MST