TAN: cloning
Minyon54
It's been all over the news for days: people pitching a major fit because
someone wants to attempt to clone humans. My question is WHAT IS THE BIG
FUCKING DEAL! I understand that a large section of the populace has something
that Isaac Asimov refered to as the Frankenstien complex (there are some things
we are not meant to know), but why? Knowledge is a good thing, especially
knowledge that can be as beneficial to humanity in general as cloning. Cloning
is the key to further extended lifespans (need a heart, well we'll just take
this sample DNA and grow you one). I can't understand the moral dilemma here:
beyond fear of stepping on some mythical figure's toes, what is the problem?
Minyon
Bear
It's strange isn't it. The main objection as I understand it is based
in Religion. Since Religion is based entirely on faith, rather than
factual evidence wether cloning humans is possible or not should not
be an issue for any Church to become involved.
If human cloning works (which I am certain it would) then, assuming
existance of a soul, the product would be a construct and be
"soulless". If there is no soul, then the product would be just
another human being (albeit as Doppelganger). This raises an
interesting situation. Legend of Doppelgangers is that when a person
meets their Doppelganger they will attempt to kill each other and
fight on until only one survives. Would this happen with a clone and
the "original" subject?
I'm almost finished a degree in the sciences at University and thus I
am able to appeciate cloning on a knowlege/scienctific basis. Most
people aren't privy to this type of education so they can only
appeciate cloning based on their own experience of life, so something
which they cannot begin to understand the mechanics of, even roughly,
is truly scary when it touches on something like *making* human
beings.
Comments?
Edward Humphries
Bill Garrett
miny...@aol.com (Minyon54) writes:
}
} It's been all over the news for days: people pitching a major fit because
} someone wants to attempt to clone humans. My question is WHAT IS THE BIG
} FUCKING DEAL!
I agree that there's a large amount of popular misunderstanding
and hysteria regarding the issue, but there are legitimate ethical
concerns we (as a society) should address and reach a consensus on
before moving ahead with the practice. If nothing else, we must
keep in mind that the hysteria and misunderstanding are real... if
we move too far ahead with the science before trying to clear up some
of that junk, we're going to worsen the ideological divide.
--
Bill Garrett "Some mornings it's not even worth it to gnaw
wfg1 @ concentric.net through the leather straps." -Emo Phillips
John S. Novak
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:46:05 GMT, Bear <ehum...@spam.mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 1998 23:16:02 GMT, miny...@aol.com (Minyon54) wrote:
>It's strange isn't it. The main objection as I understand it is based
>in Religion. Since Religion is based entirely on faith, rather than
>factual evidence wether cloning humans is possible or not should not
>be an issue for any Church to become involved.
Oh, cool.
Here we go again.
Can I assume everyone here already knows my position, so I can just
killfile this right now?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
*bunnyTshens*
Bear (ehum...@spam.mail.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
: On 15 Jan 1998 23:16:02 GMT, miny...@aol.com (Minyon54) wrote:
: >It's been all over the news for days: people pitching a major fit because
: >someone wants to attempt to clone humans. My question is WHAT IS THE BIG
: >FUCKING DEAL! [snippity] I can't understand the moral dilemma here:
: >beyond fear of stepping on some mythical figure's toes, what is the problem?
: If human cloning works (which I am certain it would) then, assuming
: existance of a soul, the product would be a construct and be
: "soulless". If there is no soul, then the product would be just
: another human being (albeit as Doppelganger). This raises an
: interesting situation. Legend of Doppelgangers is that when a person
: meets their Doppelganger they will attempt to kill each other and
: fight on until only one survives. Would this happen with a clone and
: the "original" subject?
Cloning has been going on involuntarily for millions of years.
They are called "identical twins", and they do not seem to be harbingers
of the Antichrist or somesuch. Two people with identical DNA are nothing
more than two people with identical DNA.
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
Devin L. Ganger
<flashy-thing!> Remember only that on 16 Jan 1998 02:52:39 GMT,
in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan John S. Novak wrote:
> Can I assume everyone here already knows my position, so I can just
> killfile this right now?
Go right ahead.
While you're at it, I'm still learning slrn, so can you tell me how
to do it as well?
--
Devin L. Ganger <de...@premier1.net>
Chief Systems Administrator
Premier1 Internet Services
Bobbo 613
How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <34bec...@news.wln.com> tshe...@rs6a.wln.com (*bunnyTshens*)
writes:
>Cloning has been going on involuntarily for millions of years.
>They are called "identical twins", and they do not seem to be
>harbingers of the Antichrist or somesuch. Two people with identical
>DNA are nothing more than two people with identical DNA.
A typically narrowly biological perspective.
The relationship between birth twins and a "parent" and its clone are
very likely going to be two very different things. Entirely different
familial dynamics.
Cloning oneself strikes me as an act of colossal vanity with potentialy
bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
It is neither necessary nor desirable.
Flavio Carrillo
Bunnythor
Bobbo 613 inquired:
>How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
Someone posted it here. Duh!
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
P.S. : Free hint--
If a thread has "TAN:" in its title, then it is
TANgental to the main topic (i.e., Robert Jordan).
Free hint II: the rasfwrj FAQ is posted here
periodically, It's short, so read it. It will tell you
about things like TAN and other common
acronyms, in addition to various things about this
group and what sort of behavior one can expect
to find here.
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <69mtij$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
}The relationship between birth twins and a "parent" and its clone are
}very likely going to be two very different things. Entirely different
}familial dynamics.
}
}Cloning oneself strikes me as an act of colossal vanity with potentialy
}bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
}
}It is neither necessary nor desirable.
Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
--
Dylan Alexander dy...@tamu.edu
"Please Dylan, in the name of all that's holy, leave us be. If
annoyance were a crime, you'd be Jeffrey Dahmer." - C. Chase
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <dylan-ya02408000...@news.tamu.edu> dy...@tamu.edu
(Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
>Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
>old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
>would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
Oddly enough, I'd mentioned the potential for Oedipal shenanigans over
in another newsgroup.
Many of those failing to see the "big deal" about cloning are looking
at the matter from a narrow biological standpoint. The twins argument
(i.e., genetically speaking, cloning is no different than identical
twins) in particular is the apotheosis of this sort of demented
nonsense. The matter goes well beyond biology into the realm of
psychology, sociology, family and child development, etc.
Too many of our scientifically literate citizens are ethically
illiterate and are unable to understand these matters in any terms
other than material ones. This is not the entirety of the issue,
people.
There is little doubt that very soon, human cloning will be a reality.
But just because it can be done does not mean it should be.
In particular, I fear the potential for a Benthamite race to the
bottom. (And you, Dylan, will know what that means, although few others
here will. I've no desire to go into a lecture on crude Utilitarian
materialism in this post. Maybe later.)
Without constraints cloning could lead to a gradual coarsening and
dehumanizing of the zeitgeist; if all we are is organic machinery and
nothing else, what stops us from, say, staging gladiatorial contests to
the death between clones, cloning bodies and scooping their brains out
for ready access to tissue, etc. In a very real sense, once you stop
believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
This need not happen immediately; it could happen in a series of
seemingly innocent baby steps in a process of "defining deviancy
downwards" until, suddenly, you find yourself past a moral event
horizon without realizing quite how you got there.
From my standpoint, cloning does nothing to enhance human dignity and
amour propre. Rather the opposite.
Flavio Carrilloo
Kenneth G. Cavness
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
<69mtij$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>Cloning oneself strikes me as an act of colossal vanity with
>potentialy bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
Yeah. Birth really is a horrific thing.
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://conan.proxicom.com/~kcavness
Kenneth G. Cavness
Dylan F. Alexander wrote in message ...
>Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
>old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
>would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
Apparently, you and Flavio have never seen a person whose
daughter strongly resembled the mother.
Come _on_. You're _not_ introducing anything in cloning that
doesn't already exist in great numbers in the real world.
Now, if you first want to prove the dangers of this outside
of cloning, I'll listen.
Mark Loy
In article <19980116051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bobb...@aol.com (Bobbo 613) wrote:
> How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
Alright...fess up, who was the last one in here last night and forgot to
lock the fuckin' door before leaving? Probably didn't turn out the god
damned lights, either. No wonder something like this can just sashay in
here and set up residence. And once these things get in and get all
comfortable like, there's Hell to pay to get rid of the buggars.
Sheesh, you'd think with all the gun-threads somebody'd be at least a
little bit concerned about group security.
ML
Michael Kozlowski
In article <69nbfu$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Without constraints cloning could lead to a gradual coarsening and
>dehumanizing of the zeitgeist; if all we are is organic machinery and
>nothing else, what stops us from, say, staging gladiatorial contests to
>the death between clones, cloning bodies and scooping their brains out
>for ready access to tissue, etc. In a very real sense, once you stop
>believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
Oh, good. The "atheists don't have morals" argument again.
You'll pardon me if I sit out this time 'round.
--
Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
Recommended SF (Updated 1/15): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
Scott Mohler
Dylan F. Alexander wrote:
>
> In article <69mtij$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
> flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
>
> }The relationship between birth twins and a "parent" and its clone are
> }very likely going to be two very different things. Entirely different
> }familial dynamics.
> }
> }bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
> }
>
> old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
> would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
Yes, but you are making the assumptions that the daughter would have had
the same environmental upbringing.
[snip large argument with self about nature vs nurture]
You are also assuming that the DNA makes the attraction. Or would it be
that since he found his wife attractive, he is going to want to boff is
daughter because she looks the same? One of my friends is the spitting
image of his father, but I don't recall any incestual problems within
that family.
The big thing that people tend to forget with cloning is that the
techniques talked about right now produce a new *HUMAN BEING*! They
start from a egg cell and let it mature in the same fashion as a zygote
formed by the old-fashioned squirt-and-pray method. This isn't some
nasty we're-making-a-full-grown-human, it is making a baby. They don't
grow it in a petri dish. It doesn't come out knowing everything that
the original knows. It knows as much as a baby (ie crying and sucking
on nipples which if the original is a guy acutally may be everything).
It shits in its pants and requires over a decade to reach sexual
maturity.
The biggest concern of scientist right now is the biological age of the
clone. Right now we don't understand why people get old and die, at
least not fully. One of the big theories is that the chromosomes get
shorter as cells undergo mitosis. While there is a buffer zone on then
end of the chromosome (teleomere), it eventually gets used up and
important info starts to get cut out. If this is true then the
biological age of the clone just born would be at least the age of the
original, if not more because of the large burst in mitotic activity
required to move from one cell to an eight pound baby. This means that
a clone from a 20 yr old would only have a lifespan of ~60 years and a
clone from a 60 yr old would only live for ~20 years or less. How do
you treat a 3 yr old for diseases of the aged? It would provide some
really great evidence on what diseases are a natural part of aging and
what is environmentally controlled and what is genetic.
Now here is where the ethics (irregardless of religion, Jesus wouldn't
touch that with a 60' pole) start to come in. Is it ethical or
responsible to bring a human into the world, knowing that if everything
goes right, won't live past the age of 20, or 40 or...? A societal
burden without the payoff?
Personal view (which should be included to understand what spin I'm
going ot put on this):
I think that cloning experiments should continue, but let's lay off the
humans for now. With everything else we do we start with rats, work our
way through dogs and pigs, stop somewhere in the simians and then do
work on people. We are in the dog and pig stage and havn't even
finished that experiment. See how Dolly's life goes. Do a few more
sheep and start to work on 'tangs and monkeys. Get the technique down
so you don't have to remove an entire ovary from a woman just to get a
95% success rate.
-Scott Mohler
"Dr. Richard (Dick) Seed. Coincidence?"
Bill Garrett
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) writes:
}
} Cloning oneself strikes me as an act of colossal vanity with potentialy
} bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
} It is neither necessary nor desirable.
How about these two situations:
- An individual or couple can't conceive "the old fashioned way",
but they do want a genetically-related child. They decide to
reproduce by cloning.
- An individual needs a bone marrow transplant, but no genetically
suitable donors are available. Cloning creates a person who can
donate (and still live a normal, fully functional life).
These are situations which already arise, and cloning offers a better
solution than the current alternatives (or at least offers an additional
alternative).
As I've said before, the major ethical issue here is making sure that
cloned humans are recognized as absolutely first-class humans, no
different in kind than those conceived the old fashioned way.
Bill Garrett
} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
You're clearly suggesting the man would start cheating on his wife.
Wouldn't such a man have similar desires towards other women? The
daughter is _not_ his wife. She would have as different a personality
as any child is likely to have from her mother, and she may even look
different than her mother did at that age since factors like nutrition
and environment can greatly affect physical development.
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69o234$f...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> m...@vega23.cs.wisc.edu (Michael
Kozlowski) writes:
>Oh, good. The "atheists don't have morals" argument again.
>
>You'll pardon me if I sit out this time 'round.
Er, not at all.
Ethicality is not synonymous with religiosity, nor did anything in my
post mention religion as such. I did speak about various flavors of
moral philosophy.
Flavio Carrillo
Karl-Johan Noren
In <69o88i$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>,
wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill Garrett) wrote:
[ cloning ]
> As I've said before, the major ethical issue here is making sure that
> cloned humans are recognized as absolutely first-class humans, no
> different in kind than those conceived the old fashioned way.
"I'm from XX, kiddo." [1pt]
--
Karl-Johan Norén (Noren with acute e) -- k-j-...@dsv.su.se
http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore/
- To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
stupider than one can believe
Michael Kozlowski
In article <69oa0k$b...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>Kozlowski) writes:
>
>>Oh, good. The "atheists don't have morals" argument again.
>>You'll pardon me if I sit out this time 'round.
>
>Er, not at all.
Oh, fine. Replace "atheists" with "materialists," if you must; my
objection -- and my unwillingness to debate the issue again -- remain.
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69o88i$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com> wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill
Garrett) writes:
>How about these two situations:
>
> - An individual or couple can't conceive "the old fashioned way",
> but they do want a genetically-related child. They decide to
> reproduce by cloning.
Troublesome.
I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
the child has all the same rights as any other child.
I wonder what would happen if the couple gets divorced? Does the
genetically related parent have some greater claim? _Should_ that
parent have a greater claim?
Despite the airy dismissals of Ken Cavness, the potential for
psychological problems does exist. We're going into uncharted terriroty
here.
If the couple is fertile, should they be allowed to clone themselves
anyway?
> - An individual needs a bone marrow transplant, but no genetically
> suitable donors are available. Cloning creates a person who can
> donate (and still live a normal, fully functional life).
This, frankly, is deeply wrong.
A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
producing organic material for someone else? If that someone else is
your sibling, is this possibly a problematical situation? Might there
be a bit of resentment?
(And yes, I'm aware that this is a real life case.)
If we begin to view ourselves and our children as fungible organic
commodities, we're going to be in for serious trouble.
>As I've said before, the major ethical issue here is making sure that
>cloned humans are recognized as absolutely first-class humans, no
>different in kind than those conceived the old fashioned way.
In your second example at least, there's something distincly second
class about the treatment of the child.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69oai7$l...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> m...@vega23.cs.wisc.edu (Michael
Kozlowski) writes:
>Oh, fine. Replace "atheists" with "materialists," if you must; my
>objection -- and my unwillingness to debate the issue again -- remain.
Materialism isn't the sole secular ethical outlook out there, Micheal
-- one can object to it on ethical grounds not based on religion.
Your knowledge of ethical philosophy strikes me as being rather
shallow.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69o8em$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com> wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill
Garrett) writes:
>dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
>}
>} Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
>} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
>} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
>
>You're clearly suggesting the man would start cheating on his wife.
>Wouldn't such a man have similar desires towards other women? The
>daughter is _not_ his wife. She would have as different a personality
>as any child is likely to have from her mother, and she may even look
>different than her mother did at that age since factors like nutrition
>and environment can greatly affect physical development.
That's all quite logical, as far as it goes. Whether or not the
parental id will match the parental superego is another matter.
What Dylan is suggesting goes well beyond mere "cheating." Try
pederasty and incest. (Yes, I know that biologically speaking this
isn't incest -- but psychologically, it would be. Consider the case of
Woody Allen's misadventures.)
Cloning potentially weakens long standing taboos in this regard.
Pushing the example further, let's say dad divorces mom, waits a couple
of years until the mom's clone is an adult, and proposes marriage.
Kosher or no? There's no cosanguinity, after all.
I think I'm going to read some Sophocles tonight.
Flavio Carrillo
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <69nbfu$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Without constraints cloning could lead to a gradual coarsening and
>dehumanizing of the zeitgeist; if all we are is organic machinery and
>nothing else, what stops us from, say, staging gladiatorial contests to
>the death between clones, cloning bodies and scooping their brains out
>for ready access to tissue, etc. In a very real sense, once you stop
>believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
This is something of a straw man. There is a wide middle ground
between prohibiting human cloning altogether and placing no
constraints on it whatsoever; a simple clarification that clones
are, in fact, human beings and should be treated as such would
avoid the dystopian scenarios you posit. The question of, as
you put it, if all we are is organic machinery is not one that
is uniquely raised by cloning, and to be perfectly honest I don't
even understand how it relates at all. If that were truly the
amoral idea you fear, the gladitorial contests and organ factories
would have happened long since. Curiously enough, they have not.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <69ob6r$i...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>Garrett) writes:
>
>>How about these two situations:
>>
>> - An individual or couple can't conceive "the old fashioned way",
>> but they do want a genetically-related child. They decide to
>> reproduce by cloning.
>
>Troublesome.
>
>I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
>the child has all the same rights as any other child.
Sure. I think we all do.
>> - An individual needs a bone marrow transplant, but no genetically
>> suitable donors are available. Cloning creates a person who can
>> donate (and still live a normal, fully functional life).
>
>This, frankly, is deeply wrong.
>
>A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
>handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
>the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
>
>How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
>producing organic material for someone else? If that someone else is
>your sibling, is this possibly a problematical situation? Might there
>be a bit of resentment?
>
>(And yes, I'm aware that this is a real life case.)
Then why do you suggest that this is a problem posed by cloning?
You've raised legitimate ethical issues, but none of them, from the
gladitorial contests to the 'handy tissue donor', are at all uniquely
raised by cloning.
>In your second example at least, there's something distincly second
>class about the treatment of the child.
How so? So the parents' motivation for concieving the child were less
than pure. This doesn't necessarily change the treatment of the child
once it's born. Or do you also think that all children who were
concieved by accident are treated as second-class people, compared to
those whose conception was planned?
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <69nmbi$sd8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Kenneth G. Cavness"
<kcav...@proxicom.com> wrote:
}Dylan F. Alexander wrote in message ...
}>Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
}>old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
}>would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
}
}
}Apparently, you and Flavio have never seen a person whose
}daughter strongly resembled the mother.
"Strongly resembles" is rather different than genetically
identical. It goes beyond looks, too - wherever you stand
on the nature vs. nurture issue, the child is going to
have a much closer personality to her mother than would
be the case with a normal child.
}Come _on_. You're _not_ introducing anything in cloning that
}doesn't already exist in great numbers in the real world.
}
}Now, if you first want to prove the dangers of this outside
}of cloning, I'll listen.
I'm not implying it's "dangerous", just perhaps unhealthy in
many cases.
I consider the psychological effects of being a copy of someone
else, not unique like 6 billion other people rather more
troublesome in any case.
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <69o8em$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
(Bill Garrett) wrote:
}dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
}}
}} Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
}} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
}} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
}
}You're clearly suggesting the man would start cheating on his wife.
Hardly. I'm suggesting he'd be _thinking_ about it and it
probably wouldn't lead to the most healthy relationship.
}Wouldn't such a man have similar desires towards other women? The
}daughter is _not_ his wife.
No shit. She's going to be a lot tighter.
Emma Pease
>Many of those failing to see the "big deal" about cloning are looking
>at the matter from a narrow biological standpoint. The twins argument
>(i.e., genetically speaking, cloning is no different than identical
>twins) in particular is the apotheosis of this sort of demented
>nonsense. The matter goes well beyond biology into the realm of
>psychology, sociology, family and child development, etc.
Hmm, even from a biological standpoint I think human cloning should be
no go for the moment. In particular we don't know what the side effects
of the current method of cloning are as we haven't even done many
clones of other animals.
As far as social problems, well that is SF's domain at this time,
Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Richard M. Boye'
Emma Pease wrote:
>
> In <69nbfu$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) writes:
> As far as social problems, well that (cloning) is SF's domain at this time,
> Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
Hmm. I'm reading Cyteen right now.
It's rather unnerving.
C.J. Cherryh is one hell of a writer though.
I've only read her sci-fi stuff (I was particualrly fond of her
_Foreigner_ universe). Does anyone know anything about her fantasy work?
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo
"But other than that Mrs. Lincoln,
how did you like the play?"
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <69p0ns$gb...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
(Bill Garrett) wrote:
}flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) writes:
}} I wonder what would happen if the couple gets divorced? Does the
}} genetically related parent have some greater claim? _Should_ that
}} parent have a greater claim?
}
}That's an issue the courts can work out,
Interesting.
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <69p0uf$gb...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
(Bill Garrett) wrote:
}dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
}} In article <69o8em$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
}} (Bill Garrett) wrote:
}} }dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
}} }}
}} }} Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
}} }} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
}} }} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
}} }
}} }You're clearly suggesting the man would start cheating on his wife.
}}
}} Hardly. I'm suggesting he'd be _thinking_ about it and it
}} probably wouldn't lead to the most healthy relationship.
}
}Presumably, this man would be _thinking_ about lots of other women
}who remind him of what his wife was like 24 years ago.
None of whom live with him and sleep less than 50 yards away.
}How is this really different from a 40 year old guy being interested
}in _any_ 16 year old girl?
It's a matter of degree, not kind. I happen to think it's a fair
degree of difference, though.
}If the "daughter" is fully cloned from
}his wife, she's not biologically related to him.
Thus removing _that_ particular taboo.
Emma Pease
In <34BFD1...@webspan.net> "Richard M. Boye'" <wa...@webspan.net> writes:
>Emma Pease wrote:
>> As far as social problems, well that (cloning) is SF's domain at this time,
>> Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
>Hmm. I'm reading Cyteen right now.
>It's rather unnerving.
>C.J. Cherryh is one hell of a writer though.
>I've only read her sci-fi stuff (I was particualrly fond of her
>_Foreigner_ universe). Does anyone know anything about her fantasy work?
A lot of people dislike her fantasy who love her SF so be warned.
I rather like Rider at the Gate/Cloud's Rider which has some fantasy
elements and turns them on their heads (particularly the young
overlooked girl is found by magical beast one).
Dylan F. Alexander
In article <slrn6c09o...@viking.cris.com>, J...@viking.cris.com (John
S. Novak) wrote:
}On 16 Jan 1998 19:08:11 GMT, Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}
}>A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
}>handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
}>the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
}
}Only if you mandate that the child donate.
}If you regard it as a bankshot-- clone, wait for age of ethical
}informed consent, and then ask-- there is nothing that reduces anyone
}to property status.
Didn't some couple a year or so back have a kiddo the old
fashioned way just to donate some tissue to a sibling or
parent? I wonder what the line here is - can you only
harvest tissue from babies when it definitely won't impact
that child's life? Presumably you can't force your kids
to donate a kidney.
}>How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
}>producing organic material for someone else?
}
}I don't let other people shape my self image quite so much.
}Besides, if I decided I resented that fact, I could just refuse to
}donate.
Unless it's bone marrow or something similar.
Scott Mohler
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote:
>
> In <dylan-ya02408000...@news.tamu.edu> dy...@tamu.edu
> (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
>
> >Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
> >old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
> >would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
>
> in another newsgroup.
>
> at the matter from a narrow biological standpoint. The twins argument
> (i.e., genetically speaking, cloning is no different than identical
> twins) in particular is the apotheosis of this sort of demented
> nonsense. The matter goes well beyond biology into the realm of
> psychology, sociology, family and child development, etc.
Much as test tube babies did?
>
> Too many of our scientifically literate citizens are ethically
> illiterate and are unable to understand these matters in any terms
> other than material ones. This is not the entirety of the issue,
> people.
Show the unenlightened in your way, almighty deus, and please do it in
such a way
that the ethical enlightenment is an actual pointing out of specifics
and not just scare tactics ("I fear...I fear...") [end tit-for-tat
flaming]
>
> There is little doubt that very soon, human cloning will be a reality.
> But just because it can be done does not mean it should be.
>
> In particular, I fear the potential for a Benthamite race to the
> bottom. (And you, Dylan, will know what that means, although few others
> here will. I've no desire to go into a lecture on crude Utilitarian
> materialism in this post. Maybe later.)
>
> Without constraints cloning could lead to a gradual coarsening and
> dehumanizing of the zeitgeist; if all we are is organic machinery and
And if we do research into astronomy and the earth isn't the center of
the universe, people will stop believing in God.
> nothing else, what stops us from, say, staging gladiatorial contests to
> the death between clones, cloning bodies and scooping their brains out
> for ready access to tissue, etc. In a very real sense, once you stop
> believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
Do you fight atheism this vehemently? What stopped South Africa from
breeding blacks just for staging gladiatorial contests. The Romans did
it and somehow society managed to move forward and not become less
moral, or are we less ethical than Romans? Did the world stop believing
in the soul?
>
> This need not happen immediately; it could happen in a series of
> seemingly innocent baby steps in a process of "defining deviancy
> downwards" until, suddenly, you find yourself past a moral event
> horizon without realizing quite how you got there.
How do you feel about abortion? Gun Control? Capital Punishment?
Drugs? Tobacco? They all use this argument. It is a questionable
argument at best just because it assumes worst case scenario the entire
way down to the bottom. It also applies to both sides. For example:
Banning cloning will lead to the end of medicine by "defining deviancy
upward". No cloning leads to no test tube babies leads to no birth
drugs leads to no abortion leads to no invasive procedures...
>
> From my standpoint, cloning does nothing to enhance human dignity and
> amour propre. Rather the opposite.
Cloning is not likely to ever go the direction of full human growth for
tissue access or gladiatorial contests just based on economic factors.
Keeping a brain dead human alive is a difficult and extremely expensive
proposition. More likely is we will move past cloning humans
(genetically useless, too much attachment to the old fashioned way) and
use similar techniques to develope differentiated cells such as
proto-nerves, livers, hearts, blood vessels, etc. in less time than it
takes to grow a human of the appropriate size.
Beware Luddite arguments unless you are going to carry them to the
logical end.
-Scott Mohler
Chad R Orzel
>writes:
>
>>Cloning has been going on involuntarily for millions of years.
>>They are called "identical twins", and they do not seem to be
>>harbingers of the Antichrist or somesuch. Two people with identical
>>DNA are nothing more than two people with identical DNA.
>
>A typically narrowly biological perspective.
>
>The relationship between birth twins and a "parent" and its clone are
>very likely going to be two very different things. Entirely different
>familial dynamics.
>
>bad psychological side effects on your offspring.
<shrug>
So is normal conception, really.
The act of conceiving a child (when there's thought put into it, that is)
amounts to saying "I'm a pretty neat person, and my genes should be
handed down to the next generation." And if you're a major fuck-up, that
can have some pretty serious psychological side effects on your
offspring.
From a parent-child standpoint, this is a non-starter. All the objections
I've seen raised in this vein seem to spring from some horribly misguided
view of "cloning" as a murky B-movie process whereby the clone springs
fully formed from the forehead of the "parent," and prances about through
some sort of split-screen movie magic, looking, sounding, and talking
exactly like the "parent."
It doesn't work that way. Clones will be _babies,_ and will grow up
like normal children. There'll be diapers to change, and skinned knees to
patch, and a whole different set of childhood traumas, and by the time
the clone reaches the age at which he or she _would_ look like the
"parent" did at the time of cloning, the "parent" is old and grey. Just
like "normal" children.
Yeah, some people might use the "clone" label to psychologically wound
their cloned children, but you know what? There are some sick fuckers out
there who psychologically wound their "normal" children with time-honored
lines like "You were an accident. We never wanted you." or "You're
worthless. I wish you'd never been born."
Yeah, some people might try to get cloned so they could have personal
slaves, for labor purposes, or perverted sexual reasons. But you know
what? There are people who use their normal children as house slaves, and
people who see their normal children as sex objects. This is why we have
child labor laws, and Departments of Social Services, and why we jail
people who rape children.
Sure, deranged people should never be able to have access to clones of
themselves. But deranged people should never be able to have children,
either, or _access_ to children. Are you prepared to seek a global ban on
human sexual reproduction to avoid that?
Most of the issues raised in opposition to cloning are simply nonsense.
"What if scientists start cloning people for use in medical experiments?"
Unless they're experimenting on how to clone people, they'd be idiots.
That's a hell of a lot of effort to go to to get a guinea pig- it's far
far cheaper to post ads at your local college, and skim test subjects out
of the grad student population.
"What if people start cloning themselves to have spare organs for
transplant purposes?" Again, they'd be idiots. You're not getting a
fully-developed adult body after four to six weeks shipping time. You're
getting a _child._ A child that someone is going to have to feed, and
clothe, and raise for _years_ before the organs would be of any use to
you. That's one mother of an expensive insurance policy.
"Yeah, but what if someone in some squalid little country started a clone
farm and penned up lots of cloned children and raised them as little more
than beasts to serve as test subjects, and spare parts factories, and
suchlike?" Hell, there's no reason why you'd need cloning for that. Go to
some squalid Third World country, and buy up a bunch of "normal"
children. God knows, they've got plenty to spare, and if you get enough
of them, you can get the genetic range you need for whatever your evil
little heart desires. And there's no expensive technology to buy.
The only questions raised that can't be dismissed out of hand as the
frightened mewlings of the scientifically illiterate and common-sense
deprived are philosophical and theological in nature. "Is this 'tampering
in God's domain?'" and the like. And those are fundamentally unanswerable
questions.
As for the "second-class citizen" issue, I'm pretty sure we've been
through this argument regarding far more easily distinguished groups of
people, and I'm pretty sure we've decided that it's Bad. And why,
exactly, would cloned children be more inherently freakish than, say,
test-tube babies? Or (assuming multiple clones of one person) septuplets?
This is a non-issue.
Later,
OilCan
Drew Gillmore
Andrea Lynn Leistra <alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote
: In article <69ob6r$i...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
: Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >In <69o88i$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com> wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill
: >Garrett) writes:
: >
: >>How about these two situations:
: >>
: >> - An individual or couple can't conceive "the old fashioned way",
: >> but they do want a genetically-related child. They decide to
: >> reproduce by cloning.
: >
: >Troublesome.
: >
: >I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
: >the child has all the same rights as any other child.
:
: Sure. I think we all do.
I don't think we all do. I know I do, and that a lot of people do, but I
believe that there will be a group of people that see the child as
something less than human. Prejudice runs too deeply in humans for it to
fall out any other way. And while there will be those that understand and
can realize the differences and rise above them, the vast majority won't be
able to.
: >> - An individual needs a bone marrow transplant, but no genetically
: >> suitable donors are available. Cloning creates a person who can
: >> donate (and still live a normal, fully functional life).
: >
: >This, frankly, is deeply wrong.
: >
: >A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
: >handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
: >the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
: >
: >How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
: >producing organic material for someone else? If that someone else is
: >your sibling, is this possibly a problematical situation? Might there
: >be a bit of resentment?
: >
: >(And yes, I'm aware that this is a real life case.)
:
: Then why do you suggest that this is a problem posed by cloning?
: You've raised legitimate ethical issues, but none of them, from the
: gladitorial contests to the 'handy tissue donor', are at all uniquely
: raised by cloning.
I don't think that Flavio is suggesting that this problem or any of the
others there are uniquely raised by cloning. I think he's pointing out
that these are inherent flaws in the human viewpoint in the world at large,
and that before cloning can become commonplace, there has to be a change in
understanding.
: >In your second example at least, there's something distincly second
: >class about the treatment of the child.
:
: How so? So the parents' motivation for concieving the child were less
: than pure. This doesn't necessarily change the treatment of the child
: once it's born. Or do you also think that all children who were
: concieved by accident are treated as second-class people, compared to
: those whose conception was planned?
A bad example, me thinks. In these circumstances, most everybody happens
the same way. Even if it is an accident, or the motivation is off, there
is a nine month waiting period with which to ponder it, and through which
most families have to go through a change in their lifestyle due to the
fact that they're pregnant.
If you take away the intimacy of it all, and are able to produce something
"human" away from the humanity of the situation, with your motivation being
it's useful-ness, in my opinion you are reconciling the child to a second
class of human.
I think motivation *does* have a large role to play. I think motivation is
the key to showing why cloning is a bad idea in general. For now.
--
Kid Probability dr...@cats.ucsc.com
Bill Garrett
} Garrett) writes:
}
} >How about these two situations:
} >
} > - An individual or couple can't conceive "the old fashioned way",
} > but they do want a genetically-related child. They decide to
} > reproduce by cloning.
}
} Troublesome.
} I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
} the child has all the same rights as any other child.
That's exactly what I've said in almost every contribution I've
made to this thread.
} I wonder what would happen if the couple gets divorced? Does the
} genetically related parent have some greater claim? _Should_ that
} parent have a greater claim?
That's an issue the courts can work out, and I don't think it
should hold up cloning all by itself.
} If the couple is fertile, should they be allowed to clone themselves
} anyway?
What if a single woman wishes to have a genetically related child?
Currently, her options are "rent-a-stud" and artifical insemination
("thaw-n-serve").
} > - An individual needs a bone marrow transplant, but no genetically
} > suitable donors are available. Cloning creates a person who can
} > donate (and still live a normal, fully functional life).
}
} This, frankly, is deeply wrong.
} A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
} handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
} the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
It has already been done with current birthing methods.
I see no problem with it, provided the parents _do_ treat the new
child as a first-class human rather than an organ factory.
Suppose a married couple already have two children, and one needs a
bone marrow transplant. Would they hesitate to volunteer their other
child as a donor, if that's the best option available? I doubt it.
It's not much different if they choose to have the second child
after finding out that the first needs a donor, _provided_ they
plan to raise and love that child as they do their first.
Who's to say what people's reasons are for having children, anyway?
Is it any less noble to have a second child to save a dying first
child, than it is to have a third child just because three seems like
a better number than two, or to have an seventh to provide extra help
operating the family farm?
} If we begin to view ourselves and our children as fungible organic
} commodities, we're going to be in for serious trouble.
I agree with Andrea on this; I don't see how cloning brings us any
closer to this problem than we were with procreation the old fashioned
way. There's nothing _mysterious_ about getting pregnant anymore.
There's no more "ghost in the machine". Where once people explained
pregnancy and birth as the will and miracle of God, we now understand
the physical processes.
Sadly, I think it's the holdouts for the "ghost in the machine" who
pose the greatest risk of mistreating clones. I'll grant you that
there are a few mad-scientist types who'd use cloning to open up
body factories, but my experience is that the bulk of people who
support cloning right now have already gotten past the ethical
issues. The people opposing cloning are mostly the sort who _would_
consider clones to be second-class humans.
Bill Garrett
} (Bill Garrett) wrote:
} }}
} }} Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
} }} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
} }} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
} }
}
} Hardly. I'm suggesting he'd be _thinking_ about it and it
} probably wouldn't lead to the most healthy relationship.
Presumably, this man would be _thinking_ about lots of other women
who remind him of what his wife was like 24 years ago.
How is this really different from a 40 year old guy being interested
in _any_ 16 year old girl? If the "daughter" is fully cloned from
his wife, she's not biologically related to him.
--
Michael Kozlowski
In article <01bd22dc$53cf83a0$68807280@gillmore>,>: >I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
>: >the child has all the same rights as any other child.
>: Sure. I think we all do.
>
>I don't think we all do. I know I do, and that a lot of people do, but I
>believe that there will be a group of people that see the child as
>something less than human.
Oh, come on. Every time I've seen cloning mentioned, I've seen people
trot out that tired old perpetual underclass bit. But you know what? In
all those debates, I've _never_ seen anyone even come close to advocating
that clones be considered second-class citizens. Never.
>Prejudice runs too deeply in humans for it to
>fall out any other way.
Ah. Prejudices against a class of people who _can't be told apart_ from
"just plain folks" under any circumstances whatsoever? Neat trick, that.
John S. Novak
On 16 Jan 98 04:18:50 GMT, Devin L. Ganger <de...@premier1.net> wrote:
>While you're at it, I'm still learning slrn, so can you tell me how
>to do it as well?
Assuming you've set up a file for a kill file (this needs to be
configured, as I recally) you just hit 'K' on the article, run through
the options, and select edit. You can play around with things in
there. See also,
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~lahvak/software/slrn/index.html
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak
On 16 Jan 1998 06:09:23 GMT, Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Maybe just a few potshots.
>>Cloning has been going on involuntarily for millions of years.
>>They are called "identical twins", and they do not seem to be
>>harbingers of the Antichrist or somesuch. Two people with identical
>>DNA are nothing more than two people with identical DNA.
>A typically narrowly biological perspective.
A fact.
>It is neither necessary nor desirable.
Flavio likes passive voice.
The sentence should properly read: Flavio neither needs it nor
desires it.
John S. Novak
On 16 Jan 1998 11:30:53 -0800, Andrea Lynn Leistra
<alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>This is something of a straw man. There is a wide middle ground
>between prohibiting human cloning altogether and placing no
>constraints on it whatsoever; a simple clarification that clones
>are, in fact, human beings and should be treated as such would
>avoid the dystopian scenarios you posit.
Ah, but that makes too much sense.
When you're too fixated on dystopian nightmares, it's hard to apply
reason and common sense. It's also pretty easy to retreat to the
perceived moral high ground, issue proclamations like, "Most of the
scientists are ethically illiterate," and then use any disagreement as
evidence of that conclusion.
John S. Novak
On 16 Jan 1998 19:08:11 GMT, Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>A child ought to be brought into the world on its own merits. Not as a
>handy tissue donor for someone else; such an act reduces the child to
>the status of property, ethicaly speaking.
Only if you mandate that the child donate.
If you regard it as a bankshot-- clone, wait for age of ethical
informed consent, and then ask-- there is nothing that reduces anyone
to property status.
>How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
>producing organic material for someone else?
I don't let other people shape my self image quite so much.
Besides, if I decided I resented that fact, I could just refuse to
donate.
--
John S. Novak
On 16 Jan 1998 11:36:22 -0800, Andrea Lynn Leistra
<alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
>>the child has all the same rights as any other child.
>Sure. I think we all do.
Frankly, in an American court, anyway, I cannot conceive that a legal
ruling that considered a clone as anything less than a being with
_exactly_ the same rights as a normally conceived child would ever
stand.
ThumBoy666
In article <19980116051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, bobb...@aol.com
(Bobbo 613) writes:
>How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
I'm sure someone with a better sense of humour (did somebody mention Mark Loy?)
can answer this in a _far_ more interesting manner than I could, so I'll be
blunt. You see in the subject heading "TAN?" That means "tangent" (or
something very close to that). You may or may not have noticed that a good
percentage (last month I'm sure it was over 50%) of the posts on this newsgroup
are TAN. The main reason for this is because actual on-topic discussion slows
in between books. I mean, it's been two years and we're still waiting for a
new book. I'm not saying TAN will disappear when Path of Daggers comes out,
just that it won't take up so much of the newsgroup as it currently does. Why
do we have TAN on this newsgroup? Well, we've got to talk about _something_
don't we?
--
"[Insert quote here. That way I don't have to bother with thinking.]"
-Sandy
Eric Schissel
Richard M. Boye' (wa...@webspan.net) wrote:
>Hmm. I'm reading Cyteen right now.
>It's rather unnerving.
It does raise interesting issues.
>C.J. Cherryh is one hell of a writer though.
Agreed.
>I've only read her sci-fi stuff (I was particualrly fond of her
>_Foreigner_ universe). Does anyone know anything about her fantasy work?
(Her recent "Finity's End" has some of the best characterization and
personality-driven story I've read recently, by the way.)
Well, the trilogy Rusalka, Chernevog and Yvgenie is at least ok.
The Gate series is better, and Fortress in the Eye of Time, a sequel to
which is on the way, is better still. IMHO!
-Eric Schissel
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69ochd$e...@elaine14.Stanford.EDU> alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Andrea Lynn Leistra) writes:
>This is something of a straw man. There is a wide middle ground
>between prohibiting human cloning altogether and placing no
>constraints on it whatsoever; a simple clarification that clones
>are, in fact, human beings and should be treated as such would
>avoid the dystopian scenarios you posit. The question of, as
>you put it, if all we are is organic machinery is not one that
>is uniquely raised by cloning, and to be perfectly honest I don't
>even understand how it relates at all. If that were truly the
>amoral idea you fear, the gladitorial contests and organ factories
>would have happened long since. Curiously enough, they have not.
A moral consensus is always a contingent matter. It's not self
executing and, in extremis, can be changed by various forces.
Consider, for example, the matter of out of wedlock births. A few
decades ago, this was a rare matter, now it is becoming fairly
commonplace. It's widely accepted by most sociologists that this has
contributed to a number of social pathologies.
The dystopian scenario I paint doesn't have to happen, of course. But
part of the way to avoid it is to recognize its possibility.
Up until very recently wives and children _were_ considered property in
most cultures and in most legal codes. In English common law there was
even an exemption for spousal rape -- a wife, being property of her
hsuband, couldn't be raped by him. Slavery still exists in many areas
of the world, and we ourselves fought a bloody civil war largely as a
result of that matter.
The idea that people might be considered property is a very natural and
recurring one.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69ocrm$e...@elaine14.Stanford.EDU> alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Andrea Lynn Leistra) writes:
>>Troublesome.
>>
>>I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
>>the child has all the same rights as any other child.
>
>Sure. I think we all do.
I also hope that society's moral consensus, over time, remains fixed so
as to maintain this. I'm not at all sure this will be the case.
>Then why do you suggest that this is a problem posed by cloning?
>You've raised legitimate ethical issues, but none of them, from the
>gladitorial contests to the 'handy tissue donor', are at all uniquely
>raised by cloning.
Well, no, the problems aren't unique to cloning. They are, in fact,
very old problems. But cloning gives these old problems new
possibilities and opportunites.
>How so? So the parents' motivation for concieving the child were less
>than pure. This doesn't necessarily change the treatment of the child
>once it's born. Or do you also think that all children who were
>concieved by accident are treated as second-class people, compared to
>those whose conception was planned?
This was not an accidental birth. This was a birth specifically planned
for the purpose of providing tissue for another child. The child _is_
being treated differently to the extent that it has been prepared and
raised for that purpose.
The parents' motivation is not merely less than pure -- it is wrong.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <emma.88...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU> em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma
Pease) writes:
>Hmm, even from a biological standpoint I think human cloning should be
>no go for the moment. In particular we don't know what the side
>effects of the current method of cloning are as we haven't even done
>many clones of other animals.
>
>As far as social problems, well that is SF's domain at this time,
>Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
Emma, it is merely a question of when, not if, this will be possible.
My SF models for the social problems of cloning are different than
yours. I'm thinking Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley. But consideration of
social and ethical problems isn't a monopoly of SF, either.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69p0ns$gb...@gazette.engr.sgi.com> wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill
Garrett) writes:
>} I wonder what would happen if the couple gets divorced? Does the
>} genetically related parent have some greater claim? _Should_ that
>} parent have a greater claim?
>
>That's an issue the courts can work out, and I don't think it
>should hold up cloning all by itself.
Work out how? Under what set of ethical criteria?
I don't think the question I posed is as trivial as you make it out.
>Who's to say what people's reasons are for having children, anyway?
>Is it any less noble to have a second child to save a dying first
>child, than it is to have a third child just because three seems like
>a better number than two, or to have an seventh to provide extra help
>operating the family farm?
Who is to say? We, collectively are to say.
There are any number of restrictions on what you can do to your
children. They are not merely property of parents to do with as they
wish. At least not at present -- not very long ago the opposite was the
case.
You are not in the least bothered by people having children for the
explicit purpose of providing donor tissue?
>I agree with Andrea on this; I don't see how cloning brings us any
>closer to this problem than we were with procreation the old fashioned
>way. There's nothing _mysterious_ about getting pregnant anymore.
>There's no more "ghost in the machine". Where once people explained
>pregnancy and birth as the will and miracle of God, we now understand
>the physical processes.
You have misunderstood what I meant by "ghost in the machine."
The mystery here is not a biological one, but an ethical one. No,
there's nothing myserious about pregnacy. But there is something very
mysterious about identity, personhood, and individual autonomy.
As I've said elsewhere, cloning raises old questions in a new way.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <slrn6c08o...@viking.cris.com> J...@viking.cris.com (John S.
Novak) writes:
>Flavio likes passive voice.
>The sentence should properly read: Flavio neither needs it nor
>desires it.
John, there are times when you are incredibly excrutiating.
First of all, I don't always use the passive voice -- but there is a
time and place for it, as with anything else.
Secondly, you win my creative editing award for the week. You snip out
the entire contents of my post and the substantive arguments within, to
focus on my conclusion out of context, and then dismiss it on stylistic
rather than substantive grounds.
You're not even _trying_ to to debate me on serious grounds here.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <slrn6c09o...@viking.cris.com> J...@viking.cris.com (John S.
Novak) writes:
>Only if you mandate that the child donate.
>If you regard it as a bankshot-- clone, wait for age of ethical
>informed consent, and then ask-- there is nothing that reduces anyone
>to property status.
That's fine; but we have a real life case of a couple who had a child
for this purpose and then went ahead with taking that child's bone
marrow for their other child.
This does not fill me with confidence.
>>How would you feel if you knew you were born for the purpose of
>>producing organic material for someone else?
>
>I don't let other people shape my self image quite so much.
>Besides, if I decided I resented that fact, I could just refuse to
>donate.
The child in question couldn't refuse.
Flavio Carrillo
Richard M. Boye'
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote:
>
> This was not an accidental birth. This was a birth specifically planned
> for the purpose of providing tissue for another child. The child _is_
> being treated differently to the extent that it has been prepared and
> raised for that purpose.
>
> The parents' motivation is not merely less than pure -- it is wrong.
Excuse me while I blunder it to this.
If I recall correctly, not so long ago, there was a family splashed
across the news, who had a daughter in her 20's who had some sort of
illness where she needed bone marrow donations. She had no siblings, and
her parents (for whatever reason) didn't match, so the parents (in their
40's) underwent reversals of both a tubal ligation(I think) and a
vasectomy in order to have another child just so that daughter #1 would
have a compatable marrow donor.
That is really disquieting, IMHO.
Michael Kozlowski
In article <69qe61$n...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
>yours. I'm thinking Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley.
Somehow, I'm not surprised by this.
Kate Nepveu
em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
>As far as social problems, well that is SF's domain at this time,
>Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
_Cyteen_'s still on my list, but Bujold is good for showing the
extremes possible in the situation. I don't really recommend that
anyone start reading Bujold with _Mirror Dance_ though, unless they're
only reading for the issue of clones and identity.
--
Kate http://www.concentric.net/~knepveu/index.html
"This is a lovely party," said the Bursar to a chair, "I wish
I was here."
--Terry Pratchett, _Lords and Ladies_
Aaron Bergman
In article <69nbfu$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
:In a very real sense, once you stop
:believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
This is patently untrue, Flavio. Read some modern treatments of ethics.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
The smallest number not expressable in under ten words
John S. Novak
On 17 Jan 1998 14:27:59 GMT, Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Flavio likes passive voice.
>>The sentence should properly read: Flavio neither needs it nor
>>desires it.
>John, there are times when you are incredibly excrutiating.
Quit stealing my lines.
>First of all, I don't always use the passive voice -- but there is a
>time and place for it, as with anything else.
Yeah. Particularly those times when you want to state a personal
opinion in a way that looks like you speak with the Voice of Society,
or the Voice of the Platonic Moral Absolute.
>You're not even _trying_ to to debate me on serious grounds here.
We've had this dance before.
Emma Pease
>In <emma.88...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU> em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma
>Pease) writes:
>>Hmm, even from a biological standpoint I think human cloning should be
>>no go for the moment. In particular we don't know what the side
>>effects of the current method of cloning are as we haven't even done
>>many clones of other animals.
>>As far as social problems, well that is SF's domain at this time,
>>Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
>Emma, it is merely a question of when, not if, this will be possible.
>My SF models for the social problems of cloning are different than
>yours. I'm thinking Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley. But consideration of
>social and ethical problems isn't a monopoly of SF, either.
True, but this is a SF newsgroup and SF has been speculating about the
problems for quite some time. Note that the SF is discussing at least
two different issues:
1. The controlled putting together of genetic material for a human
(unlike the slot machine method most often used).
2. The method of growing of the egg to baby. At the moment this can
only be done with a woman's uterus. Huxley, Shelley, and Cherryh all
have artificial wombs; Bujold has it as an option sometimes abused.
Note that for Huxley and Shelley it is more the artificial method of
pregnancy that is disturbing. Artificial wombs are not likely in the
near future.
One issue not discussed in the SF but specific to cloning as we now
have it:
3. Whether there are side effects of cloning that will adversely
affect the life of the clone (e.g., premature aging).
Now 1 has been around for quite some time. People intending to become
parents usually try to choose their sexual partners carefully and have
done so for centuries. It also includes things like fixing genetic
defects in the egg (still in the future) or weeding out embryos with
genetic defects at a very early stage. Simple cloning is just one
method of determining the genetic makeup of the child (and even with
clones the expression can be quite different from the original).
3 is one reason I see for not allowing attempts to clone humans in the
near future.
Whether 3 turns out to be a valid worry or not, society's problem is
still how much genetic determination of a child should we allow and
who makes the decision. For instance though it would be extremely
useful to weed out genetic problems like hemophilia should we allow
people to weed out females because they desire sons?
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Flavio J. Carrillo
>Beware Luddite arguments unless you are going to carry them to the
>logical end.
Any argument is susceptible to reductio ad absurdum. That doesn't make
any particular argument wrong, in of itself.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <abergman-170...@net40-31.student.yale.edu>
aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) writes:
>
>In article <69nbfu$d...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
>:In a very real sense, once you stop
>:believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
>
>This is patently untrue, Flavio. Read some modern treatments of
>ethics.
Who says I haven't?
In counteresponse, I invite you to read Neitzsche.
Flavio Carrillo
Bill Griffiths
Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on 16 Jan 1998
18:34:39 -0800, em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
>In <34BFD1...@webspan.net> "Richard M. Boye'" <wa...@webspan.net> writes:
>>C.J. Cherryh is one hell of a writer though.
>
>>I've only read her sci-fi stuff (I was particualrly fond of her
>>_Foreigner_ universe). Does anyone know anything about her fantasy work?
>
>A lot of people dislike her fantasy who love her SF so be warned.
Could you elaborate? Are these people who like both generas? Her
world-building _is_ stronger in SF, but that's the only difference
that jumps out at me after a few seconds thought.
I do admire Cherryh's work in both fields, and for pretty much the
same reason in each case. She is extremely good at conveying a sense
of "otherness" in her non-human characters (and in her humans from
different environments).
--
Bill Griffiths
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice." Hobbes
Emma Pease
>Sources close to the investigation reveal that, on 16 Jan 1998
>18:34:39 -0800, em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
>>In <34BFD1...@webspan.net> "Richard M. Boye'" <wa...@webspan.net> writes:
>>>C.J. Cherryh is one hell of a writer though.
>>A lot of people dislike her fantasy who love her SF so be warned.
>Could you elaborate? Are these people who like both generas? Her
>world-building _is_ stronger in SF, but that's the only difference
>that jumps out at me after a few seconds thought.
Actually that was pure observation on my part from discussions in
rec.arts.sf.written (and its predecessors). Which Cherryh I like or
dislike tends to be across the borders and sometimes depends on my
mood when I first read the particular work. Some Cherryh strides the
boundary by having science so advanced that it seems magic to most of
the viewpoint characters (the Gate series for instance perhaps the
Cloud books). Cherryh does like twisting things whether it be gender
roles or points of view.
Richard M. Boye'
Emma Pease wrote:
>
> 2. The method of growing of the egg to baby. At the moment this can
> only be done with a woman's uterus. Huxley, Shelley, and Cherryh all
> have artificial wombs; Bujold has it as an option sometimes abused.
> Note that for Huxley and Shelley it is more the artificial method of
> pregnancy that is disturbing. Artificial wombs are not likely in the
> near future.
Don't be so sure of that. I remember seeing on Dateline or 20/20 or some
such show, that over in Japan, scientists have had/or were very close to
having fetal lambs gestate completely inside an artificial womb.
I'll try and and track where I remember seeing that.
Richard M. Boye'
> >_Foreigner_ universe). Does anyone know anything about her fantasy work?
>
> I rather like Rider at the Gate/Cloud's Rider which has some fantasy
> elements and turns them on their heads (particularly the young
> overlooked girl is found by magical beast one).
Oh, Brionne Goss was hardly overlooked. She was the spoiled brat in the
family. But I do recognize your point about the irony about the maiden
capturing magic horse.
In book one, anyway.
Book two...
Who knows what that was.
Dylan F. Alexander
}Don't be so sure of that. I remember seeing on Dateline or 20/20 or some
}such show, that over in Japan, scientists have had/or were very close to
}having fetal lambs gestate completely inside an artificial womb.
Well, if it was Dateline they almost certainly faked it.
--
Dylan Alexander dy...@tamu.edu
"Please Dylan, in the name of all that's holy, leave us be. If
annoyance were a crime, you'd be Jeffrey Dahmer." - C. Chase
R. James Coleman III
Bear wrote:
[snip why are people against cloning]
> It's strange isn't it. The main objection as I understand it is based
> in Religion. Since Religion is based entirely on faith, rather than
> factual evidence wether cloning humans is possible or not should not
> be an issue for any Church to become involved.
>
> If human cloning works (which I am certain it would) then, assuming
> existance of a soul, the product would be a construct and be
> "soulless". If there is no soul, then the product would be just
> another human being (albeit as Doppelganger). This raises an
> interesting situation. Legend of Doppelgangers is that when a person
> meets their Doppelganger they will attempt to kill each other and
> fight on until only one survives. Would this happen with a clone and
> the "original" subject?
>
> I'm almost finished a degree in the sciences at University and thus I
> am able to appeciate cloning on a knowlege/scienctific basis. Most
> people aren't privy to this type of education so they can only
> appeciate cloning based on their own experience of life, so something
> which they cannot begin to understand the mechanics of, even roughly,
> is truly scary when it touches on something like *making* human
> beings.
>
> Comments?
Why is it assumed that just because the clone would be genetically identical to the
DNA donor that they would also be phenotypically identical? If that were the case,
then all identical twins would have exactly the same personality, mannerism, and
appearance, because they have identical genes. This is not at all the case. They are
not of one soul, and their differing conditioning makes them unique individuals. The
same reasoning can be applied to cloning.
(BTW, this was my first post, so Hi.)
--
Better leave while my song still calls
It's the truth that I'm going down to die
John S. Novak
On 17 Jan 1998 19:30:13 GMT, John S. Novak <J...@voyager.cris.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jan 1998 14:27:59 GMT, Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yeah. Particularly those times when you want to state a personal
>opinion in a way that looks like you speak with the Voice of Society,
>or the Voice of the Platonic Moral Absolute.
On reflection, this is almost certainly unfair, as I'm sure I've done
similar in the past without noticing it or intending it.
If it matters, I've got three things on my mind-- one business, one
family, one personal, all very annoying. Regardless, that deserves
public apology.
I still disagree with you entirely, Flavio... But you knew that.
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <slrn6c2n3...@viking.cris.com> J...@viking.cris.com (John S.
Novak) writes:
>On reflection, this is almost certainly unfair, as I'm sure I've done
>similar in the past without noticing it or intending it.
>
>If it matters, I've got three things on my mind-- one business, one
>family, one personal, all very annoying. Regardless, that deserves
>public apology.
>
>I still disagree with you entirely, Flavio... But you knew that.
Hey, that's cool. Disagreement keeps things interesting.
And thank you for your very kind and gentlemanly apology.
Flavio Carrillo
Bear
>Flavio J. Carrillo wrote:
>>
>> This was not an accidental birth. This was a birth specifically planned
>> for the purpose of providing tissue for another child. The child _is_
>> being treated differently to the extent that it has been prepared and
>> raised for that purpose.
>>
>> The parents' motivation is not merely less than pure -- it is wrong.
>
>Excuse me while I blunder it to this.
>
>If I recall correctly, not so long ago, there was a family splashed
>across the news, who had a daughter in her 20's who had some sort of
>illness where she needed bone marrow donations. She had no siblings, and
>her parents (for whatever reason) didn't match, so the parents (in their
>40's) underwent reversals of both a tubal ligation(I think) and a
>vasectomy in order to have another child just so that daughter #1 would
>have a compatable marrow donor.
>
>That is really disquieting, IMHO.
>
>
I understand this point, but I think it is somehwat flawed.
What you are suggesting is that we allow a person to die when it is
quite possible that the person can be saved with the technology at
hand. So, instead of creating a new life, which will still live on
after it has served it's "purpose" (so to speak) and more than likely
would be cared for as family by those who needed the clone. I know I'd
be grateful that they existed if it was going to save _my_ life.
So I come to this, how is letting the person die any less immoral than
making the clone (or in the above post, new child) to *save* the life.
I contend it is worse, since it is taking away the most precoius thing
in our world, life.
Edward Humphries
ehum...@mail.usyd.edu.au
Magnus Itland
alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrea Lynn Leistra) wrote:
>How so? So the parents' motivation for concieving the child were less
>than pure. This doesn't necessarily change the treatment of the child
>once it's born. Or do you also think that all children who were
>concieved by accident are treated as second-class people, compared to
>those whose conception was planned?
Actually, this may partly be the case. I have notice that a lot
of parents treat their children as second-class people, a curse
rather than a blessing. This seems to be less the case with
those I know whose kids were welcome and sought after.
But it may be a statistical fluke or merely reflect differences
in personality type.
Magnus Itland
J...@viking.cris.com (John S. Novak) wrote:
>Oh, cool.
>Here we go again.
>
>Can I assume everyone here already knows my position, so I can just
>killfile this right now?
Sure. This thread is only to satisfy our emotional needs.
No facts are required. No unclouded judgement is wanted.
Emma Pease
In <34C14B...@webspan.net> "Richard M. Boye'" <wa...@webspan.net> writes:
>Emma Pease wrote:
>> I rather like Rider at the Gate/Cloud's Rider which has some fantasy
>> elements and turns them on their heads (particularly the young
>> overlooked girl is found by magical beast one).
>Oh, Brionne Goss was hardly overlooked. She was the spoiled brat in the
>family. But I do recognize your point about the irony about the maiden
>capturing magic horse.
Agreed but she she saw herself as a Cinderella.
>In book one, anyway.
>Book two...
>Who knows what that was.
Cherryh seems to have left herself open for a third book even though
the books are complete. What happens to the gold shipment, what
happens between the two lowland towns (remember the political
situation between the two was tense), what happens when everyone
rushes into Tarmin, what was that thing and will it or others like it
come back and what will the people have to do to stop it?
Kristi
Dylan F. Alexander wrote:
>
> In article <69p0uf$gb...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
> (Bill Garrett) wrote:
>
> }dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
> }} In article <69o8em$f2...@gazette.engr.sgi.com>, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE
> }} (Bill Garrett) wrote:
> }} }dy...@tamu.edu (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
> }} }}
> }} }} Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
> }} }} old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
> }} }} would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
> }} }
> }} }You're clearly suggesting the man would start cheating on his wife.
> }}
> }} Hardly. I'm suggesting he'd be _thinking_ about it and it
> }} probably wouldn't lead to the most healthy relationship.
> }
> }Presumably, this man would be _thinking_ about lots of other women
> }who remind him of what his wife was like 24 years ago.
>
> None of whom live with him and sleep less than 50 yards away.
>
> }How is this really different from a 40 year old guy being interested
> }in _any_ 16 year old girl?
>
> It's a matter of degree, not kind. I happen to think it's a fair
> degree of difference, though.
>
> }If the "daughter" is fully cloned from
> }his wife, she's not biologically related to him.
>
> Thus removing _that_ particular taboo.
Sheesh! There are sickos out there who are going to be turned on by
their _biological_ daughters! There are sickos out there who even _act_
on their impulses in this direction! If any rational, sane man has been
given a child to raise--no matter whether he was a contributor to her
genetic material--he'll see himself as her _father_. (Woody Allen
notwithstanding, because I mean "to raise" in a more traditional sense
than his quasi-incestuous relationship with his now-wife.) I look quite
a lot like my mother did at my age, but my dad and I had and have a very
healthy father/daughter relationship because he's been responsible for
my upbringing and has taken that responsibility seriously. Wouldn't it
be safe to say (and I'm not sure, so I'm asking) that any normal man
with a parental bond to another person would put that bond at a level
beyond sex?
A man who would participate in his wife's pregnancy (whether the
pregnancy is a result of cloning or more normal methods of conception),
raise the resulting child and then later think of that child as a sexual
partner is just sick, period. Same goes for women, although you guys
haven't brought that fact into play AFAIR. It'd probably be a little
disconcerting, according to the rationale I've seen so far, living with
a hard-bodied version of your middle-aged husband, too. Sane, normal
people just don't sleep with the ones with whom they have established
parent/child bonds, no matter _how_ they are or aren't genetically
related to them.
Also, this makes me wonder whether you think adoptive parents are very
likely to become sexually involved with their children. Since there are
no blood ties, seems to me that adoptive parents with attractive
children would be just seething with inner turmoil.
Incest happens. The offender often rationalizes it by saying, "I'm
his/her stepparent so it isn't incest" or "they live in the same house
as I do and just keep flaunting themselves around me" or any of a
thousand excuses. The "well, he/she's genetically identical to my
husband/wife, so I'm not really doing anything but having sex _with_ my
husband/wife" line of thought may well become another excuse--for those
who would try to rationalize this sort of thing in the first place.
The ethical question regarding cloning is very hot at this time, and
most people haven't really decided (or don't really have enough
information _to_ decide) their stance on it. This incestuous slant,
though (and as far as I'm concerned, incest is _not_ merely a matter of
blood relationship), seems geared toward people who are twisted to begin
with.
--Kristi
Ronnie N. Carpio
In article <emma.88...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU>,
em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) wrote:
> Whether 3 turns out to be a valid worry or not, society's problem is
> still how much genetic determination of a child should we allow and
> who makes the decision. For instance though it would be extremely
> useful to weed out genetic problems like hemophilia should we allow
> people to weed out females because they desire sons?
>
This last scenario is already occurring in China, where the one child
per family policy, and a preference for sons, has led to a male-female
ratio of 1.31 to 1 (among 20-25 year olds, it's 1.67 to 1). This will
supposedly result in 90 million Chinese bachelors by the end of this
century...
Ronnie N. Carpio
rnca...@kudonet.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Richard M. Boye'
(Cherryh's Rider series)
> Cherryh seems to have left herself open for a third book even though
> the books are complete. What happens to the gold shipment, what
> happens between the two lowland towns (remember the political
> situation between the two was tense), what happens when everyone
> rushes into Tarmin, what was that thing and will it or others like it
> come back and what will the people have to do to stop it?
Emma, what was the fate of Guil and Tara? I don't remember.
Anyway, I was recently over at her webpage, and I did see that she has
plans to write another book in that setting, as well as at least one
more in the Foreigner setting.
_That's_ the one I'm waiting for. I loved that series, and book three
left off with an intriguing premise for book for.
It's wonder who she manges to write so many diverse stories in different
'universes' out of sequence and keep them all straight.
Magnus Itland
bobb...@aol.com (Bobbo 613) wrote:
>How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
It's a Wheel of Time. What goes around, comes around.
Kenneth G. Cavness
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
<69res4$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
>In counteresponse, I invite you to read Neitzsche.
Neitzsche's "Superman" was not a superbeing of physical
means.
I thought most people knew that.
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://conan.proxicom.com/~kcavness
Kenneth G. Cavness
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
<69qe61$n...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <emma.88...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU>
>em...@Kanpai.Stanford.EDU (Emma Pease) writes:
>
>>As far as social problems, well that is SF's domain at this
>>time, Cyteen and Mirror Dance come to mind.
Cyteen actually makes a good point for me: In order for
the main character (whose name eludes me at the moment) to
be replicated completely, her _entire life_ had to be
duplicated. That includes having her sequestered for years,
having her original avi's being replicated as well, and also
having her life be very restricted.
In other words, it's not just the genes that make the
person up -- though they do play a large part; rather,
it's both environmental and heriditary concerns that
play a role.
I would be very much against doing what was done in Cyteen.
But I'm not against cloning a physical body.
>Emma, it is merely a question of when, not if, this will be
>possible.
>
>My SF models for the social problems of cloning are different
>than yours. I'm thinking Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley. But
Intriguing that you think of _Frankenstein_ as an argument
against cloning. Presumably because you think that this
is a classic case of "man playing God"?
As to Huxley's argument, it was indeed a good blasting of
the cloning arguments -- however, it also required a rigid
social structure that placed the needs of the individual
far below the needs of the common good.
It seems to me that that scenario is highly unlikely. And it
could as easily be reproduced in a governmental rather than
a medical stance, with everything we currently have available.
I refer you to Orwell.
(by the way, regarding your last statement that ethical
questions aren't solely relegated to the world of SF:
Huxley and Shelley were both writing SF, for their times.)
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69u8ff$odb$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
>
>>In counteresponse, I invite you to read Neitzsche.
>
>
>Neitzsche's "Superman" was not a superbeing of physical
>means.
>
>I thought most people knew that.
Ken, Ken, Ken.
This isn't at all what I was getting at.
Try again. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with nihilism.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69u92d$scm$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
<kcav...@proxicom.com> writes:
>(by the way, regarding your last statement that ethical
>questions aren't solely relegated to the world of SF:
>Huxley and Shelley were both writing SF, for their times.)
That's true.
But I never said otherwise.
I was referring to considerations of moral philosophy outside
literature altogether.
Flavio Carrillo
Kenneth G. Cavness
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but other than through the media
of literature, press, or visual entertainment, how is somebody
going to get their point across to a large body of people?
Kenneth G. Cavness
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
<69ucd3$n...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <69u8ff$odb$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
><kcav...@proxicom.com> writes:
>>Flavio J. Carrillo wrote in message
>><69res4$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>In counteresponse, I invite you to read Neitzsche.
>>Neitzsche's "Superman" was not a superbeing of physical
>>means.
>>I thought most people knew that.
>Ken, Ken, Ken.
Flavio, Flavio, Flavio...
>This isn't at all what I was getting at.
>
>Try again. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with
>nihilism.
RASFWRJites:
Given the subject matter and the tossing around of
philosophers, which subject would _You_ have picked
that Flavio was obliquely referring to when he mentioned
Neitzsche:
the Superman
Nihilism
Drew Gillmore
Michael Kozlowski <m...@vega23.cs.wisc.edu> wrote
: In article <01bd22dc$53cf83a0$68807280@gillmore>,
: Drew Gillmore <dr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
: >Andrea Lynn Leistra <alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote
: >: Flavio J. Carrillo <flav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >I want to make sure that legal structures are in place to insure that
: >: >the child has all the same rights as any other child.
: >:
: >: Sure. I think we all do.
: >
: >I don't think we all do. I know I do, and that a lot of people do, but
I
: >believe that there will be a group of people that see the child as
: >something less than human.
:
: Oh, come on. Every time I've seen cloning mentioned, I've seen people
: trot out that tired old perpetual underclass bit. But you know what? In
: all those debates, I've _never_ seen anyone even come close to advocating
: that clones be considered second-class citizens. Never.
But the concern is out there. That it is mentioned everytime cloning is
mentioned shows that.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't believe cloning is wrong. I don't think
that we shouldn't clone. Hell, I wish I had two or three more of me just
for kicks and grins. At least then I'd have someone to relate to.
Seriously though. What bothers me is that humans have a great ability to
misunderstand. I don't think that any *would* advocate that clones be
treated as second class citizens, but the fact that we currently have to
pass laws to make sure that no one *is* treated as a second class, and
would probably have to do the same for clones, says to me that we're not
ready for it.
: >Prejudice runs too deeply in humans for it to
: >fall out any other way.
:
: Ah. Prejudices against a class of people who _can't be told apart_ from
: "just plain folks" under any circumstances whatsoever? Neat trick, that.
You're right, in the long run it wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand,
you can't honestly tell me that before the novelty wears off that it won't
be a media circus on who's cloning who.
--
Kid Probability dr...@cats.ucsc.edu
Devin L. Ganger
<flashy-thing!> Remember only that on Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:41:12 -0600,
in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Ronnie N. Carpio wrote:
> This last scenario is already occurring in China, where the one child
> per family policy, and a preference for sons, has led to a male-female
> ratio of 1.31 to 1 (among 20-25 year olds, it's 1.67 to 1). This will
> supposedly result in 90 million Chinese bachelors by the end of this
> century...
ObLoy: That's a *lot* of recklessly thrown-open robes...
--
Devin L. Ganger <de...@premier1.net>
Chief Systems Administrator
Premier1 Internet Services
Karl-Johan Noren
In <69qeqs$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
> wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill Garrett) writes:
>
> >} I wonder what would happen if the couple gets divorced? Does the
> >} genetically related parent have some greater claim? _Should_ that
> >} parent have a greater claim?
> >
> >That's an issue the courts can work out, and I don't think it
> >should hold up cloning all by itself.
>
> Work out how? Under what set of ethical criteria?
The same criteria as is used in every other court decision
about which parent has the greater claim. Ie, what the child
wants (if he/she is old enough) and which parent is best
qualified.
I can't see anything mystical here. No homonculus that needs
to be coddled.
> I don't think the question I posed is as trivial as you make it out.
No, it's not a trivial question. But then again, deciding
who'll take care of the children in case of a divorce is
hardly ever a trivial decision.
--
Karl-Johan Norén (Noren with acute e) -- k-j-...@dsv.su.se
http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore/
- To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
stupider than one can believe
Mark Loy
In article <slrn6c65uo...@blacktower.premier1.net>,
de...@premier1.net wrote:
> <flashy-thing!> Remember only that on Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:41:12 -0600,
> in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan Ronnie N. Carpio wrote:
>
> > This last scenario is already occurring in China, where the one child
> > per family policy, and a preference for sons, has led to a male-female
> > ratio of 1.31 to 1 (among 20-25 year olds, it's 1.67 to 1). This will
> > supposedly result in 90 million Chinese bachelors by the end of this
> > century...
>
> ObLoy: That's a *lot* of recklessly thrown-open robes...
You misspellulated "kimonos".
HTH
ML
Travis Wright
Flavio J. Carrillo wrote:
>
> In <dylan-ya02408000...@news.tamu.edu> dy...@tamu.edu
> (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
>
> >Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
> >old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
> >would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
>
One does wonder, exactly how does this differ form a 40 year old guy
whose 16 year old daughter look exactly like his wife did when she was
young?
> Oddly enough, I'd mentioned the potential for Oedipal shenanigans over
> in another newsgroup.
>
> Many of those failing to see the "big deal" about cloning are looking
> at the matter from a narrow biological standpoint. The twins argument
> (i.e., genetically speaking, cloning is no different than identical
> twins) in particular is the apotheosis of this sort of demented
> nonsense. The matter goes well beyond biology into the realm of
> psychology, sociology, family and child development, etc.
>
How so? Isn't it the obvious course to consider them nothing more or
less than our own children?
<snip>
> Without constraints cloning could lead to a gradual coarsening and
> dehumanizing of the zeitgeist; if all we are is organic machinery and
> nothing else, what stops us from, say, staging gladiatorial contests to
> the death between clones, cloning bodies and scooping their brains out
> for ready access to tissue, etc. In a very real sense, once you stop
> believing in a "ghost in the machine", anything is moraly possible.
What stops us from doing these things now?
Again, isn't it obvious that our viewpoint should be that any future
clones are _people_ and entitle to all of the rights and privileges that
we enjoy.
>
> This need not happen immediately; it could happen in a series of
> seemingly innocent baby steps in a process of "defining deviancy
> downwards" until, suddenly, you find yourself past a moral event
> horizon without realizing quite how you got there.
This can and has been done to any number of minority groups in the past
(and present unfortunately). How would clones be anything more than
another such minority group, and one that is very difficult to identify
at that.
>
> From my standpoint, cloning does nothing to enhance human dignity and
> amour propre. Rather the opposite.
Well, I fail to see how clones detract from human dignity. Perhaps you
could explain it to me.
Travis
Travis Wright
Dylan F. Alexander wrote:
>
> In article <69nmbi$sd8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Kenneth G. Cavness"
> <kcav...@proxicom.com> wrote:
>
<snip stuff about 40 year old father and 16 year old clone of wife>
> "Strongly resembles" is rather different than genetically
> identical. It goes beyond looks, too - wherever you stand
> on the nature vs. nurture issue, the child is going to
> have a much closer personality to her mother than would
> be the case with a normal child.
I don't think any one can make a statement like this with any degree of
certainty. In any case, environment has a huge impact on child
development, and not just in personality. Environment can also impact
physical development and in the early years it affects even brain
development since the brain isn't fully developed until well after
birth.
I think this argument is implying that somehow the "mother" and
"daughter" are the same. Even given that they share the same genes, I
think this is a bad assumption to make. It is that assumption itself
that can potentially be the source of serious personal, psychological
and sociological problems for future clone children. Many children
today have problems establishing their identities as separate from their
parents without the society around them adding to the problem.
<snip>
> I consider the psychological effects of being a copy of someone
> else, not unique like 6 billion other people rather more
> troublesome in any case.
Again, I don't think that a clone shoud be considered a copy in any
other sense than genetically. And in that case we are all copies, I
just happen to have partial copies of two different gene sets.
Travis
Lara Beaton
so sayeth itl...@online.no (Magnus Itland) :
>bobb...@aol.com (Bobbo 613) wrote:
>>How did this cloning stuff get on the Robert Jordan Newsgroup?
>It's a Wheel of Time. What goes around, comes around.
Yes, the more appropriate question would be - how did this cloning
stuff get on the Robert Jordan newsgroup _again_?
--
Lara Beaton (remove SPAMCATCHER to reply)
The opinions expressed are not those of
International Airspace Management Systems.
"Once again, I have mistaken Dad's psyche for a breakfast food.
But the image of fending off a bloodthirsty waffle will forever
be replayed in the playground that is my mind."
Bill Garrett
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) writes:
}
} Emma, it is merely a question of when, not if, this will be possible.
} My SF models for the social problems of cloning are different than
} yours. I'm thinking Mary Shelly and Aldous Huxley.
I think it's misleading to consider SF worlds that include cloning
as examples of where cloning, alone, might take us. It's not the case
that today's world + cloning = Huxley's Brave New World. Huxley
posited a society in which the government enforces a caste system
and uses state-sponsored sex to keep the intelligentsia occupied
with matters apolitical.
--
Bill Garrett "Some mornings it's not even worth it to gnaw
wfg1 @ concentric.net through the leather straps." -Emo Phillips
Bill Garrett
} Garrett) writes:
}
} >Who's to say what people's reasons are for having children, anyway?
} >Is it any less noble to have a second child to save a dying first
} >child, than it is to have a third child just because three seems like
} >a better number than two, or to have an seventh to provide extra help
} >operating the family farm?
}
} Who is to say? We, collectively are to say.
We, collectively, have a habit of _not_ saying.
We almost never intrude into people's decisions to have children,
even when the parents in question have a record of financial or
behavioral inability to properly raise children. We might express
disapproval socially, but we rarely, rarely encode such values in
our law. It's widely regarded as improper for law to go there.
How is creating a child via cloning much different from creating a
child through traditional conception? I don't see how one can
reasonably advocate applying litmus tests to the former without also
advocating that they be applied to the latter. I don't necessarily
think it'd be wrong to do that (to both); I'm merely pointing out
that doing so would require changing one of our society's premises
about reproductive privacy.
} You are not in the least bothered by people having children for the
} explicit purpose of providing donor tissue?
As I've said before, if parents are willing and able to raise their
child as a first-class person, I don't care what their reasons are.
If they're going to spawn a kid to be a disposable organ bank,
THEN I have a problem. I've consistently argued that that shouldn't
be allowed, socially or legally.
} You have misunderstood what I meant by "ghost in the machine."
} The mystery here is not a biological one, but an ethical one. No,
} there's nothing myserious about pregnacy. But there is something very
} mysterious about identity, personhood, and individual autonomy.
I think you do a great disservice to yourself and to the issue by
calling identity a mystery. A person is not just a genetic code in a
warm body; a person is also defined by a particular set of experiences
and reactions to them. We can't _quantify_ that, but that doesn't
mean we can wave it off as _unknowable_.
Bill Garrett
} Novak) writes:
}
} >Only if you mandate that the child donate.
} >If you regard it as a bankshot-- clone, wait for age of ethical
} >informed consent, and then ask-- there is nothing that reduces anyone
} >to property status.
}
} That's fine; but we have a real life case of a couple who had a child
} for this purpose and then went ahead with taking that child's bone
} marrow for their other child.
As I've said before:
How is this consent issue any different than it would be in the case
of the parents volunteering an already-living child to donate bone
marrow to his/her sibling? Presumably, parents have the right under
the law to volunteer a young child of theirs for such an operation.
Dylan F. Alexander
}> In <dylan-ya02408000...@news.tamu.edu> dy...@tamu.edu
}> (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
}>
}> >Imagine being a 40 year old guy whose "daughter" is a 16 year
}> >old clone of his 40 year old wife. Think this relationship
}> >would have a rather...unique sort of stress to it?
}>
}
}One does wonder, exactly how does this differ form a 40 year old guy
}whose 16 year old daughter look exactly like his wife did when she was
}young?
What part of "exactly" do you fail to understand?
--
Dylan Alexander dy...@tamu.edu
"Please Dylan, in the name of all that's holy, leave us be. If
annoyance were a crime, you'd be Jeffrey Dahmer." - C. Chase
Travis Wright
Dylan F. Alexander wrote:
>
> In article <34C36E...@activesystems.ca>, twr...@activesystems.ca wrote:
>
> }> In <dylan-ya02408000...@news.tamu.edu> dy...@tamu.edu
> }> (Dylan F. Alexander) writes:
> }>
> }One does wonder, exactly how does this differ form a 40 year old guy
> }whose 16 year old daughter look exactly like his wife did when she was
> }young?
>
> What part of "exactly" do you fail to understand?
I understand "excatly" perfectly well, the question was ment to get you
to explain how the situation you described is any different than any
number of similar situations that already exist between father and
daughter (or father and step-daughter if you prefer). If the only
difference you can come up with is that the mother and daughter share a
common genetic code, then your argument is a pretty weak IMHO.
<snip>
Travis
Dylan F. Alexander
}Dylan F. Alexander wrote:
}>
}> In article <69nmbi$sd8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Kenneth G. Cavness"
}> <kcav...@proxicom.com> wrote:
}>
}<snip stuff about 40 year old father and 16 year old clone of wife>
}
}> "Strongly resembles" is rather different than genetically
}> identical. It goes beyond looks, too - wherever you stand
}> on the nature vs. nurture issue, the child is going to
}> have a much closer personality to her mother than would
}> be the case with a normal child.
}
}I don't think any one can make a statement like this with any degree of
}certainty.
Of course you can make it with _some_ degree of certainty. Only
a complete moron would argue that there is _no_ genetic influence
on personality.
}I think this argument is implying that somehow the "mother" and
}"daughter" are the same.
You need more practice at thinking.
}> I consider the psychological effects of being a copy of someone
}> else, not unique like 6 billion other people rather more
}> troublesome in any case.
}
}Again, I don't think that a clone shoud be considered a copy in any
}other sense than genetically.
And that's not important?
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69uoo4$ds7$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
<kcav...@proxicom.com> writes:
>
>RASFWRJites:
>Given the subject matter and the tossing around of
>philosophers, which subject would _You_ have picked
>that Flavio was obliquely referring to when he mentioned
>Neitzsche:
>
>the Superman
>Nihilism
Go back and review the exchange between myself and Aaron.
You read my post out of context and jumped to conclusions. Admit it.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <69uo92$9j3$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
<kcav...@proxicom.com> writes:
>Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but other than through the media
>of literature, press, or visual entertainment, how is somebody
>going to get their point across to a large body of people?
You are being obtuse.
I'm referring to non fictional philosophical works.
Flavio Carrillo
Flavio J. Carrillo
In <34C3BB...@activesystems.ca> Travis Wright
<twr...@activesystems.ca> writes:
>I understand "excatly" perfectly well, the question was ment to get
>you to explain how the situation you described is any different than
>any number of similar situations that already exist between father and
>daughter (or father and step-daughter if you prefer). If the only
>difference you can come up with is that the mother and daughter share
>a common genetic code, then your argument is a pretty weak IMHO.
The difference is one of degree.
You also fail to consider the psychological impact on a father even if
the resemblance is only physical. But I doubt the resemblence would
restrict itself merely to the physical -- we're all some unkown mixture
of genetics and envoronment, even with regards to our personality.
We won't know until this experiment in familial dynamics works its way
through, but the potential for a Woody Allenensque situation is real.
(And this case in itself is significant for having occurred in our day
and age. It's difficult to see this having happened one hundred years
ago. It's not clear to me if this represents "progress." All moral
consensuses are contingent and deviancy can be defined downwards.)
When you go around upsetting longstanding familial relationships and
pose new challenges to old taboos, you cannot be too certain of what
will happen. The law of unintended consequences and all that.
Traditions and institutions that have worked well enough since time out
of mind have a collected wisdom of their own, even if we don't entirely
understand them, and shouldn't be disturbed without good reason.
But few Americans are instinctive Burkeans, and almost no young ones
are.
Flavio Carrillo
Aaron Bergman
In article <6a0kic$i...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
flav...@ix.netcom.com(Flavio J. Carrillo ) wrote:
:In <69uoo4$ds7$1...@winter.news.erols.com> "Kenneth G. Cavness"
:<kcav...@proxicom.com> writes:
:>
:>RASFWRJites:
:>Given the subject matter and the tossing around of
:>philosophers, which subject would _You_ have picked
:>that Flavio was obliquely referring to when he mentioned
:>Neitzsche:
:>
:>the Superman
:>Nihilism
:
:Go back and review the exchange between myself and Aaron.
I never saw your response, although if it involved Neitzche (sp?), I'm not
sure I see your point. I was pointing out works that involve developments
of secular ethics. If somehow you feel that pointing out a work of an
atheist that develops a nasty system of ethics, I wouldn't be hard pressed
in the least to present you with religious systems of ethics that you
probably wouldn't find very palatable.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
The smallest number not expressable in under ten words