From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 18:19:24 MST
At 12:57 PM 3/1/02 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
Again, we're looking at nine months plus 18 years to realize the
profits. This brings us to 2020 - not very far from the Singularity
(perhaps another twenty years, IMO). Who's going to wait that long? And
what about the next generation of clones - by 2040? This assumes we even
have good quality cloning BY 2020 - which is likely but not certain - so
the first batch won't be profitable until probably 2040 - by which time, is
basketball going to still be around? Want to bet a large investment on
that? Not me.
Secondly, who says the clone wants to play basketball? Do we assume Jordan
brainwashes the kid to be an NBA fanatic just because he has the
musculature and coordination?
This is the sort of speculation I find useless because it ignores the time
limits involved and the social and technological changes over those time
limits. Things are speeding up, people. You don't have another hundred
years to screw around - this is it, the last century - unless you're
Transhuman...
>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?)
And how do you insure that when they grow up, they don't take jobs - like
Einstein - as a clerk somewhere (or the janitor in Good Will
Hunting)? Again, cloning does NOT guarantee a duplicate of the person -
only a GENETIC duplicate (leaving out pre-natal factors as well). It is
NOT proven that intelligence is clonable.
>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.
I agree with that one.
>Fix the problem. Enhance. Transcend.
>
>Best, Jeff Davis
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. AVG Anti-Virus System Version 6.0.325 Release Date: 01/28/02 Virus Database: 182 Release Date: 02/19/02 Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:43 MST