195 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Someone with this view, Ben, would have a mistaken impression about the ends-means ethical principle. Within a deliberating group having large responsibilities, it would be their duty to restrict their value expressions to a fully comprehensive set rather than one of specious vacuity. This way, no one could get away with deceitful value expressions that don’t entirely represent their motives.

Nate, I gather from this that there is no love lost between you and deontological ethics?

[Kalepha]

Within my present capacity, Don, no there isn't.

[kurt9]

My general impression of bioconservatives is that they don't like postmortality because they believe that the current institutions that are built around aging and death are desirable to keep around. In otherwords, they believe that human beings are subordinate to the preservation of certain social structures and institutions and that if the preservation of those social institutions require the death of human beings this is an acceptable sacrifice of human beings.

This line of reasoning was espoused often by Hitler and Stalin, both of whom who regarded the sacrifice of human individuals as necessary for the preservation of specific social institutions that they revered.

I consider this to be monsterous.

[kurt9]

I had a thought about the postmortal/bioconservative divide. Its clear to me that many people want to become postmortal. It is also clear to me that many other people want to live the conventional, fixed-lifespan life pattern. Is it not possible that there may be regional differences in these attitudes? Is it not possible that once post-mortality arrives that most people living in Seattle or SoCal will choose to become postmortal whereas most people in, say, the Carolinas will choose to continue living the convential fixed lifespan?

If so, this suggests a U.S. that will have a postmortal/bioconservative political divide similar to that of the "red/blue" divide we have today. Is there any reason why postmortals and traditionalists cannot peacefully co-exist in the same country?

Bioconservative clearly is not interested in postmortality. We believes in and wants to live the conventional life-cycle. If he is opposed to OTHER people choosing to become post-mortal, is he simply trying to defend the rights of people who want to continue to live the convential life pattern, or is he attacking the rights of people to choose something different from him?

When post-mortality comes, the option of living the conventional life-pattern will still be available to those who want it. It is entirely possible (though unlikely) that the vast majority of humanity may choose to remain "mortal" and that we post-mortals will exist as sort of a subculture within a conventional society (much like gay and transgenders do today).

In any case, there will be SOME people who will opt for the conventional life pattern (like bioconservative) and that this pattern will continue to exist in a post-mortal society. I see no reason why this would not be the case. At very minimum, life-span tranditionalists will live similar to the Amish and other "go-back" cultures within the melieu of a post mortal society.

Given that the conventional life pattern will alway be available as an option to people like bioconservative, why then is he (and others such as Leon Kass) so obsessed with preventing the emergence of post mortality as an option for those of us who want it? As long as their choices continue to be available to them, why should it matter to them if we choose differently from them?

These people are clearly not just defending their right to live their life choices. They seek power to deny us the right to make our own choices about this issue.

The bioconservative position is simply about a negative power grab, nothing less and nothing more. Its all about POWER, having power over the rest of us.

At least, that's how I see it.

[DJS]

My general impression of bioconservatives is that they don't like postmortality because they believe that the current institutions that are built around aging and death are desirable to keep around. In otherwords, they believe that human beings are subordinate to the preservation of certain social structures and institutions and that if the preservation of those social institutions require the death of human beings this is an acceptable sacrifice of human beings.

Kurt, I agree with you that the bioconservatives are attempting to infringe on our rights/freedoms, but I disagree with your explanation as to why. I would contend that their affinity toward certain "social structures" is largely attributable to their desire to maintain humanity's "quality of life". A more likely reason for their desire to limit our freedom of action is that they view the policies (actions) which we intend to implement as threatening their own rights. If their assessment were correct, then their response would be completely warranted.

However their assessment is not correct, but instead deeply flawed in a number of areas. Two areas that come to mind immediately:

(1) a dreadfully static view of human nature
(2) a Sophomoric view of possible futures

(And both of the above more or less stem from their use of antiquated modes of philosophical thought)

Unfortunately, I am afraid it is all to easy to demonize the opposition; especially if one is unable to "try on" the other side's conceptual frame work. Fukuyama's gratuitous attack of Transhumanism in Foreign Policy is a good example of this. Hopefully we can avoid this pitfall and confront our opponents on the battle field of ethical discourse with a more nuanced position than they have thus far presented us with. This is the surest path to victory.

I am a firm believer in moral relativity, so I concede the possibility of a future society embracing your association of bioconservatism with Nazism or Communism. But right now we are still trying to survive (literally), and such inflammatory dialog only adds to the paradigm of memetic conflict, and hence cumulative resistance to our objectives.

Edited by DonSpanton, 23 January 2005 - 10:37 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

We would all really benefit here from this little role playing of the actual debate out there if we are actually representative of the arguments of those that will be in the trenches when the debate is a fully public affair.

Be honest about this part everyone, some of that debate is all about xenophobia, what some belittle in importance and try to call simply a *yuck factor* and what others (like myself) see rooted in the most visceral associations of racist doctrine right out of our most atavistic evolutionary psychology.

Here in the thread of this discussion perhaps we are less well served by what we wish to be true and more benefited by understanding one another. The real first question IMO should be is there any common ground for reconciliation?

If the answer for that question is in the affirmative then it behooves us to outline the areas of agreement apart from the cons. For example I suggest that *quality* life extension (without the discussion of how long) and general health improvement and medical treatment are all areas that are not contentious for the most part. Please, I ask that everyone try adding to this list of *pros*, the cons are there too but at least divide the columns.

It is when we start in on the *consequences and risk assessment* it appears that things get tricky quick. That is when preconceived notions and value conflicts for hypothetical situations seem to create static making the communication somewhat incomprehensible.

I think the real bioconservative position intends to turn the *Conception* issue into a Maginot Line for the biological side of the debate and their strategy will be dependent on aspects of the *Potential Mind* that are synonymous with their perception of *Soul* AND what are the differences of *cells* versus *self*.

They think AND BELIEVE that any *discussion* of a definition after the moment biological *conception* is already giving too much ground. The entire debate is fast becoming a replay of the 60's-70's abortion debate.

As such, and in light of the growing polarity within our society, this will exacerbate conflict, increase the risk of interpersonal violence as well as being an incentive for some repressive legislation. Sadly, it is most certain to induce a level of opposition so entrenched that it must be met with the sternest resolve or those that see themselves on the side of progress will lose, at least for the time being.

If you do not think there's any ground for reconciliation do you understand what that does to the discussion?

BTW Kurt, the bioconservative (*social commons*) position is most definitely concerned with *postmortality* it just tends to be along strict traditionalist *postmortal* lines, ie. soul, heaven, authorship, social status (burial ritual) etc.

They do not generally credit alternatives with any *viability* and in fact are trying to prevent such alternative approaches to postmortality from becoming a reality if they were deemed even possible. That is why what we are doing is often seen as a form of heresy to many in the theistic community and also why I think that even when this discussion is at its most sincere there is an apparent disconnect from reality like watching two people who fear one another and do not understand each other's language try and communicate. Are we capable of understanding both sides?

That is critical because that moves us to the position of facilitating *reconciliation*.

I hope everyone understands the basics of Sociolinguistics enough to appreciate that this is one of the most common formulas for initiating violence between individuals. The fuel to feed the flames is already spilling, we still hold unlit matches but it will take less and less to start this fire, with a greater likelihood of a conflagration the longer the status quo is maintained.

I couldn't resist the image since you brought up Billy Joel, Don )

Actually that is one of the reasons I thought this thread a very useful dialog even after I became aware of its somewhat deceptive origin and I didn't blow somebody's' cover. We benefit ourselves well to at least be honestly familiar with the opposition's' arguments. It doesn't take agreement for us to do that and for that I credit Don with almost pulling off his *Red Team* role play.

[DJS]

Be honest about this part everyone, some of that debate is all about xenophobia, what some belittle in importance and try to call simply a *yuck factor* and what others (like myself) see rooted in the most visceral associations of racist doctrine right out of our most atavistic evolutionary psychology.

You mentioned this earlier in the debate, and I think I represented what the reaction of a typical bio-con would be (ie, "How dare you"). This issue is probably more or less a blind spot for our opposition, but I must say that I am not entirely clear on your proposition either.

I can clearly see the "racist doctrine" embodied as a yuck factor when the bio-cons present their positions on repro-cloning or interspecies SCNT. (I have yet to see them even attempt a rationalization of their visceral opposition to interspecies mergers). But I believe that the line begins to blur somewhat when we take into consideration more drastic forms of human augmentation. IOW, there is some validity in their cautious approach to the allowing truly "super human" capabilities crop up in our society. A renegade polymorph could do quite a bit of damage if we as a society do not have adequate counter measures in place (or perhaps human nature/disposition/ etc will change by this point?)

Where I disagree with the bio-cons is that I see benefit along with danger, and refuse to bludgeon the issue by supporting sweeping bans on all innovative technology. Simply put, I see "human nature" as adaptable and capable of making the necessary adjustments.

Regardless, such far off future speculations are uncalled for at this juncture and should not, IMHO, be part of the current debate. They most definitely do not represent "common grounds for reconciliation", and could, at worst, represent an additional source of ammunition for our opponents. This is in general why I find the Immortalist platform more suitable in confronting the bio-cons at the present time -- it is not a retreat, simply an astute awareness for strategy and tactics. In my mind, an incremental approach is usually the one best suited for progress. Let's win one position at a time. If we are going to breach the issue of augmentation, then lets at least limit it to the less radical form (ie, life span augmentation)... this is not to say that THists such as Bostrom do not provide valuable insights into the current bioethics debate.

The problem Lazarus, is that when you say *quality* life extension you have already crossed the bio-con's threshold, since they support absolutely no increases in maximal life span whatsoever. That is, of course, unless you are advocating only addressing the quality of life issue and leaving the rest of our position intentionally ambigious. I doubt however that this is what you are advocating since (A) this would be extremely difficult considering our name -- "The Immortality Institute" [lol] and (B) it would represent an unjustified memetic retreat.

Yet I understand the basic gist of your post, and also support packaging our memetics in the least threatening form possible without making unwarranted concessions.

Edited by DonSpanton, 24 January 2005 - 07:42 PM.

[DJS]

As I have already said, bioconservatism's philosophical underpinnings are shaky, and often they reject or ignore schools of thought which do not fit into their preconceived framework.

This is especially true of EP, memetics and Transhumanism in general; all of which are still considered highly controversial. If we can reconcile the two camps then hey, that's great, but I'm not holding my breath. At the present I am more inclined to look at our better understanding of these "controversial" meme complexes as the metaphorical equivalent of video game "cheats" which give us an unfair advantage in ethical deliberations. )

[randolfe]

Well, Don, you did a pretty good job. However, I'm not sure you mentioned (or admitted) using that most potent tactic: "confusing the issue".

For instance, one of your last impersonations declared:

"Randolfe, I am not contending that they "can't be normal", only that they are "not yet normal". There are significant differences between a clonote and a zygote, both in terms of the means by which they are produced, as well as their internal composition there after."

You obviously missed the import of the Korea cloning breakthrough. It was not only much more efficient but the embryos were healthy, normal and viable.

"Bioconservative" dodged this fact by falsely announcing "significant differences between a clonote and a zygote". By denying a human embryo created through the new cloning technology its status as an embryo, you (Bioconservative) dodged an inconsistency about each one's equal right to a chance at life.

Alan Keyes agrees that if you respect an embryo’s "right-to-life", once an embryo has been conceived through cloning, it is "wrong" to kill it by converting it into a stem cell culture instead of implanting it into a woman's womb. That is the consistent position.

You, (Bioconservative) also played to the popular misconception that Dolly died prematurely because she was conceived through cloning. Even Ian Wilmut said he did not believe cloning caused Dolly’s premature death. Sheep kept indoors usually die younger and frequently from the type of lung ailment that did in Dolly.

I clicked "track this topic" but never got any notifications. I think that is because I originally came in through a link in an email sent by Lazarus Long. This might be a glitch in need of fixing.

Actually, I'm not totally convinced all this was an act. You were just too good I have this creepy morbid suspicion that you really are a bioconservative. It's just that you are still in the closet and aren't fully aware of it I understand.

[DJS]

Randolfe:

Well, Don, you did a pretty good job.  However, I'm not sure you mentioned (or admitted) using that most potent tactic: "confusing the issue".

For instance, one of your last impersonations declared:

"Randolfe, I am not contending that they "can't be normal", only that they are "not yet normal". There are significant differences between a clonote and a zygote, both in terms of the means by which they are produced, as well as their internal composition there after."

You obviously missed the import of the Korea cloning breakthrough.  It was not only much more efficient but the embryos were healthy, normal and viable.

Hey Randolfe! I am well aware of South Korea's extraction of stem cells through SCNT, but I'm not sure that this break through proves much of anything (yet) in terms of efficacy. It's great that stem cells have been harvested from cloned embryos -- it shows that thera cloning is possible. Personally (and I make no claims of technical expertise) I believe that subsequent research will support the conclusion that these cloned ESCs are viable, but I think its premature to make such statements unequivocally. However, discussions about the extracted stem cells are very different from the statement you have made above. That "the embryos were healthy, normal and viable" is simply a premature conclusion. First off, the fact that the zygote (or clonote ) can be coaxed into developing to a point where the harvesting of stem cells is possible is not at all relevant to whether the embryo itself is "normal". In order to address this issue (the issue of efficacy in reproductive cloning) a significant amount of data will need to be gathered which shows conclusively that the preliminary data on reproductive cloning is no longer valid (ie, rates of birth defects/abnormalities have been greatly reduced, preferably comparable to that of traditional reproduction, +/- 2%) which would be indicative of improvements in cloning technology.

By the way, the major source of concern for me when discussing the efficacy of reproductive cloning is that of parental genomic imprinting:

Ron Bailey

Researchers suspect that the abnormalities result from parental genomic imprinting. Genomic imprinting is seen only in placental mammals (like humans) and is a result of the biological battle between the sexes. Males want their offspring to survive and so favor large progeny, females who need to reserve nutritional resources for themselves tend to favor smaller progeny. Thus imprinted paternal genes tend to promote fetal growth (such as fetal growth factor, Igf2) while maternal genes inhibit fetal growth (a gene known as H19). The size of the offspring is determined by the balance of these factors.

To make a long story short, the problem with mammalian cloning may be that the genes from nuclei from mature cells may have lost their proper imprinting due to aging. So when these mature nuclei are inserted into enucleated eggs to produce embryos, their imprinting is wrong. Since there is currently no way to restore it, either paternal or maternal genes affecting fetal growth may end up being dominant, creating the developmental imbalances seen in cloned animals. There is no test now available for checking on whether genes are properly imprinted or not, so bringing a healthy clone to term is largely a matter of chance.

Concerning the term "clonote"

To me, the term clonote can be used to distinguish between embryos which have been cloned and embryos which are the result of traditional fertilization. In adopting this terminology (both as a Transhumanist and as "Mr. Bio-con") I am in no way making the argument that clonotes are not embryos, or that they are not entitled to the same moral considerations as that of traditionally produced embryos. Of course they are. All I am arguing is that they were produced by different means. The term "clonote" is used by ethicists on both sides of the spectrum so I'm inclined to view your opposition to the term as more of a political statement regarding strategy and tactics. And to that I say each his own. )

"Bioconservative" dodged this fact by falsely announcing "significant differences between a clonote and a zygote". By denying a human embryo created through the new cloning technology its status as an embryo, you (Bioconservative) dodged an inconsistency about each one's equal right to a chance at life.

I have two points to make here. First, bioconservative was pro-choice and I stated this two or three times during the course of the debate. I was going for a "Krauthammeresque" position on potentiality as well as the BNW scenario and the slippery slope. It is crucially important to realize that there are moderate bio-cons who do not fully support the issue of potentiality, but instead use it as a "minor piece" in their repertoire. Second, as I have stated above, the term clonote in no way infers that the cloned embryos has lost its moral status as an embryo.

Alan Keyes agrees that if you respect an embryo’s "right-to-life", once an embryo has been conceived through cloning, it is "wrong" to kill it by converting it into a stem cell culture instead of implanting it into a woman's womb.  That is the consistent position.

You are correct. This is the consistent (though still fundamentally flawed) "pro life" position, but as I have stated above, I wasn't arguing from a "prolife" (AKA, the fundamentalist) position.

You, (Bioconservative) also played to the popular misconception that Dolly died prematurely because she was conceived through cloning.  Even Ian Wilmut said he did not believe cloning caused Dolly’s premature death.  Sheep kept indoors usually die younger and frequently from the type of lung ailment that did in Dolly.

Indeed I did Randolfe -- I was role playing after all. Whether or not Dolly's premature death was the result of her having been cloned is not at all clear. Regardless, Dolly, as an individual organism proves nothing. A scientist would consider her an "insignificant sample size" ) . In order to have solid scientific data, a large population of organisms must be studied. Unfortunately for proponents of reproductive cloning, the data that has been gathered to date is not in their favor.

Actually, I'm not totally convinced all this was an act.  You were just too good   I have this creepy morbid suspicion that you really are a bioconservative.  It's just that you are still in the closet and aren't fully aware of it   I understand.

What, do you think I'm a mole!?!? [lol] It's funny actually, because you are the second person to express this notion. I'll take it as a compliment. There's a quote that comes to my mind by John Stuart Mill: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that". There is a subjective aspect to all ethical considerations, and only by coming to terms with this fact can one truly master their own position. As I've said earlier in this thread, I'm sure that part of my uncanny ability for mimicry stems from the fact that I was (less than two short years ago) a neo-con. Not many people have experienced this kind of "paradigm shift" or its effects on one's perspective.

ooo, and here's another good one from Mill in regard to the fact that I was once a Conservative: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives". Fortunately, I have moved away from this dichotomy. ) [lol] [lol]

Edited by DonSpanton, 25 January 2005 - 12:23 AM.

[DJS]

And one more point Randolfe, to make it clear that I am not skirting the issue. I am contending, as a Transhumanist, that there are currently important internal differences between a zygote and a clonote because of our inability to replicate the parental genomic imprinting which takes place via normal fertillization. Unfortunately, correcting this problem may not be realistic in the short term. But on the brighter side of things there is a way around this delimma. By developing a test that can tell whether an embryo has been properly imprinted, it may make reproductive cloning ethically justifiable since defective clonotes could be identified and removed from the hypothetical supply, thus leaving only viable cloned embryos.

As a side note, I do not believe *imprint screening* is that far outside the realm of possibilities since there is a significant economic incentive for companies and farmers to further develop and refine agricultural cloning technologies. Once this has been accomplished the rest is elementary.

[randolfe]

Well, Don, I don't want to go in circles here. However, when you say the following:

"The term "clonote" is used by ethicists on both sides of the spectrum so I'm inclined to view your opposition to the term as more of a political statement regarding strategy and tactics. And to that I say each his own. "

You show a genuine naivete here. "Clone" is perhaps the correct word to describe a child conceived through cloning. However, the word implies a less than human condition.

Gregory Pence says it very well in his book "Cloning After Dolly":

"I will not use the word 'clone' or the phrase 'the clones' in this book to refer to humans originated by asexual reproductive cloning. 'Clone' by now connotes aberrant, mass-produced, commodified subhumans".

I suspect your Ron Bailey references are dated. The worries about size in other mammals were believed to arise because of bad imprinting of the IGF2r gene. Humans have two of these genes so many felt that would not be a problem in humans.

The paternal imprinting errors were probably avoided by the Korean experiment since they used a cumulus cell (from the ovaries or just outside the egg) and injected it into an egg the woman herself produced.

This "viability" question is not totally relevant. Stem cells can supposedly be harvested from non-viable embryos. They do have ways of judging how viable and embryo is and that was one of the real surprises in the Korean experiment.

Your repeated demands that everything be proved beforehand is exactly the kind of mindset that prevents scientific research from going forward in areas other than cloning. Those opposed to immortality might insist we "prove" it is a desirable condition before "subjecting" ourselves to it.

It's funny that people invoke the "precautionary principle" as a way to hide their own hidden prejudice (conscious or unconscious) against the things they disapprove of. Would you please "prove" that genetically-engineered "Frankenfoods" are safe for everyone to eat!!

Your "paradigm shift" from being a neoconservative just two years ago to less of one today (you're still more conservative than you imagine) is not so unique. I've gone from being a democratic socialist in my youth, on through the Democratic and Republican parties to the libertarians and then back to being a "conservative Democrat" today (not as bad as Zell Miller though--more like Bill Clinton).

Who was it that put it so well: "If you're not a socialist at eighteen, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at thirty, you have no mind."

I don't suspect you of being a "mole". However, I suspect those who have told you that you are still more of a conservative than you realize see some of the same traits I've noted above.

Indeed, I suspect our standing on the "liberal to conservative" spectrum probably varies by subject. As an immortalist, I am certainly "ultra liberal" on cloning and genetic engineering. However, I would say that I am "nearly radical right" when it comes to uploading into computers and the singularity. I'd be rather "middle -of-the-road" when it comes to artificial intelligence.

One thing is very interesting about "paradigm shifts" as I have seen them. Radical communists (what's the famous one's name from the 1950s?) become radical rightists.

I was never a Stalinist authoritarian communist. I was only a democratic socialist. Therefore, I only went as far to right as being a conservative libertarian.
Do check the dates on your research in these areas. New research changes the arguments dramatically.

Organ transplantation was hailed as a great life-saver in the 1950s but proved to be a "deadly experiment" during the next few years. It was stopped for a while. Finally, they found some drugs that suppressed the immune system and then organ transplants were resumed again.

Greg Pence is a great writer on these kinds of issues because he has such a great historical perspective.

[randolfe]

Well, Don, I didn't see your very last post until I returned to my email. This is just another example of what I have been saying. Your statement sets impossible conditions.

"By developing a test that can tell whether an embryo has been properly imprinted, it may make reproductive cloning ethically justifiable since defective clonotes could be identified and removed from the hypothetical supply, thus leaving only viable cloned embryos."

Don't you see that your innate negative attitude toward cloning leads you to insist the embryos be "screened" to make sure no imprinting errors have occurred. Why does "reproductive cloning" need to be "ethically justifiable"? Does a woman need to be married, not have too many children, etc. to be "ethically justifiable" to have more?

No, we have reproductive rights in this country. These are nearly total in certain ways. A man in jail for murder, life with no chance of parole, wanted to have semen given to his unmarried girlfriend so she could get pregnant and bear his child.

The warden said "No!". The man appealed. The courts ruled that the state had the right to hold this man in prison for the rest of his life but that the state did not have the right to deny his reproductive rights. He was allowed to have his semen given to this woman to bring into the world a child that he would never be able to be a parent to and which she didn't have adequate means to support.

"Ethical justification" was not necessary for this confined murderer to exercise his reproductive rights. It is also not necessary for me to exercise mine!

[benzealley]

Nate Barna

Someone with this view, Ben, would have a mistaken impression about the ends-means ethical principle. Within a deliberating group having large responsibilities, it would be their duty to restrict their value expressions to a fully comprehensive set rather than one of specious vacuity. This way, no one could get away with deceitful value expressions that don’t entirely represent their motives.

DonSpanton

Nate, I gather from this that there is no love lost between you and deontological ethics?

I begin to suspect I need to read some sort of primer on formal ethics, I've always gone on instinct before but it seems there's a whole lot of terminology I don't know...

Given that there is an apparent axiomatic difference (certainly as exemplified here) between the deontological and consequentialist viewpoints, how would you (Nate - or anyone else of course) convince someone that using the latter is a better idea?

--
Ben
"He who stops being better stops being good."
- Oliver Cromwell

[DJS]

Very well. Before I begin I want you to know that I respect you both as an intellectual, and as a friend. Furthermore, I view our interaction as instructive in addressing the ethics of cloning technologies. With that said, I am hopeful that you will not take offense now that the gloves must come off. Perhaps if you are at the Feb 5 Meet Up we will go out and have a pint (or a merlo, whichever you prefer ).

Randolfe:

"Clone" is perhaps the correct word to describe a child conceived through cloning.  However, the word implies a less than human condition. 

Gregory Pence says it very well in his book "Cloning After Dolly":

"I will not use the word 'clone' or the phrase 'the clones' in this book to refer to humans originated by asexual reproductive cloning.  'Clone' by now connotes aberrant, mass-produced, commodified subhumans".

Again, this is a matter of politics and I must be emphatic about this point: it is only your opinion that the term clone implies a less than human condition. The fact that the terms “clone” and “clonote” have had negative memetic baggage attach to them is regrettable, but I am afraid we are well past the point in the game where we get to define our terms (and yes, I’m playing with the phraseology here). It should also be noted that you have yet to even offer an alternative terminology.

But no wait. Your stated policy isn’t to redefine terms, but to do away with them all together. “Get rid of the classification,” you say.

Now I think it is you who is being naïve, for not only is this crude policy, but it also ignores what is required for the maintenance of an intellectual environment that is conducive to a clear, vigorous and rational discussion of the issues. If you truly think that a more vacuous dialectic will win you the argument then you have already lost. Regardless of the particular politics that you and Gregory Pence practice, it is important that you at least keep in mind the fact that all “intersubjective” institutions need a lexicon of terms. Ignoring this fact will not necessarily exclude you from the deliberative process, but it will diminish your capacity to effectively convey your message to the relevant parties.

I suspect your Ron Bailey references are dated.

What is your definition of “dated”? The quote I referenced by Bailey was a snippet that gave the general idea of what I was trying to convey. I will present more up-to-date and technical information on efficacy later in this post, but I can assure you that my Bailey quote was much more current than the notion you perpetuate below…

The worries about size in other mammals were believed to arise because of bad imprinting of the IGF2r gene.  Humans have two of these genes so many felt that would not be a problem in humans.

This statement is incorrect. The Igf2r gene is only one of multiple factors involved in genomic imprinting, and it doesn’t alter the realities of reduced viability (see large Jaenisch quote below). Second, the fact that there are two active copies of this gene is really old news dating back to the Duke findings of 2001. That’s ancient.

The paternal imprinting errors were probably avoided by the Korean experiment since they used a cumulus cell (from the ovaries or just outside the egg) and injected it into an egg the woman herself produced.

Incorrect. The Korean team has not solved the efficacy problem in reproductive cloning.

Here’s some dialog I retyped (to the best of my abilities) from a streaming video seminar at MIT World titled: Human Cloning and Human Rights: Promises and Perils. The information and opinions expressed in this video were deemed accurate by The White Head Institute as of 11/23/2004. Is that current enough?

Rudolf Jaenisch (from minutes 1:18-1:20 of clip):

“I really mean principle, not in the moral sense but from the biological point of view.  Let me explain this.  A year ago, two years ago, a group published that primates can not be cloned, that is with the rhesus.  And it went to the press and every body was relieved.  And I thought this is not the final word, its just a technical hurdle, you just have to avoid…prevent…remove some factor, and of course the Koreans group solved that problem, a predictable result.  That was a technical problem, of course humans can be cloned technically.  What I mean by the principle barrier is the epigenetic difference between your two genomes.  And I can just give it to you in one very simple way.  In normal fertilization the two genomes have a very different history and they come together at fertilization, the sperm and the egg, the consequences of these histories are a very different epigenetic state…this packaging state, it is key for getting normal development and imprinting going.  In cloning both genomes are of the identical chromosome configuration because they come from the same cell and both are exposed equally to the egg reprogramming factors and that tends to…you can do what you want, you can make it as efficient as you can dream of, your not going to solve that problem, because whatever you do to the somatic nucleus will affect both copies of the gene similarly.  That’s the principle problem.  So the only way I can see that you could solve this problem is if you could physical separate the two sets of chromosomes you have in your somatic cells, the ones from your father and the ones from your mother, and treat one set in a sperm appropriate way – whatever that is, and the other set in an oogenesis appropriate way—what ever that is.  If you could do that you would have the first step to solving it – I think.  And we just don’t know at all how to do that.  I mean, from what we know now and for the foreseeable future, it’s a principle barrier.  People try to make cloning more efficient yes, but they don’t solve that principle problem.”

Full 1:28 minute streaming video found here: MITWORLD

This "viability" question is not totally relevant.  Stem cells can supposedly be harvested from non-viable embryos.  They do have ways of judging how viable and embryo is and that was one of the real surprises in the Korean experiment.

Your repeated demands that everything be proved beforehand is exactly the kind of mindset that prevents scientific research from going forward in areas other than cloning.  Those opposed to immortality might insist we "prove" it is a desirable condition before "subjecting" ourselves to it.

It's funny that people invoke the "precautionary principle" as a way to hide their own hidden prejudice (conscious or unconscious) against the things they disapprove of.  Would you please "prove" that genetically-engineered "Frankenfoods" are safe for everyone to eat!!

The viability (AKA, efficacy) issue is totally, absolutely relevant. I think this is where you and I have our most serious disagreements. I do not oppose human reproductive cloning on any traditional moral grounds. I oppose it on grounds of efficacy.

I’ve come to the conclusion that you either haven’t fully considered, or don’t want to fully consider, the underlying ethical issues at play here. It is not ethically justifiable to use human reproductive cloning technologies when a significant percentage of the fetuses produced will either die late in their developmental trajectory, or after birth. This is a violation of the clone’s rights and should not be permitted. 90%+ of bioethicists would agree with me.

You are also misapplying The Precautionary Principle and misrepresenting my position. I oppose The Precautionary Principle and support “progress” in all its forms, technological and other wise. But I will never allow my desire for progress to trump the rights of the individual within our society, because in doing so I would only attain a Pyrrhic victory. When your argument is broken down to its core components, what is left is the fact that you support reproductive rights over individual rights – which is an absurdity.

*Also (and this is a really important point) as an Immortalist, my primary objective is indefinite life extension. Reproductive cloning does not further this goal, so to be quite honest it is not high on my list of priorities. In fact, from a political POV, reproductive cloning is poison. Therefore, the only way that I would ever, ever support reproductive cloning is if the efficacy issue could be solved. Otherwise, it’s just more ammunition for our opposition.

Since we are having a “go at it” Randolfe I must also express my dissatisfaction with a quote attributed to you that I read on page 53 of a book titled The Ethics of Human Cloning

“Every person’s DNA is his or her personal property,” Randolfe Wicker of the Cloning Rights United Front told the House committee.  “To have that DNA cloned into another extended life is part and parcel of his or her right to control his or her own reproduction.”

Now, I have heard you expressed statements to this effect before, but when I saw it in print it really caught my attention. Would this mean that identical twins “owned each other”? Would I own my clone? The contradictions are apparent, but what I find really shocking is the fact that you support the same debunked doctrine as that of our opposition on the President’s Bioethics Council – Genetic Determinism Genetic determism, the philosophical position used by the bio-conservatives to justify their arguments for potentiality. How ironic, from one extreme to the other…

I don't suspect you of being a "mole".  However, I suspect those who have told you that you are still more of a conservative than you realize see some of the same traits I've noted above.

And I suspect that your perspective is biased by your latent desire for human reproductive cloning technologies. I also suspect that I see farther than you, but all of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We can attempt to psycho-analyze each other all day long, but I think that the Institute is best served by us keeping the discussion completely “academic”. Assess my position, not my person.

Well, Don, I didn't see your very last post until I returned to my email.  This is just another example of what I have been saying.  Your statement sets impossible conditions.

I really don’t believe that it does. To me, it seems like a reasonable and realistic possibility for the legitimization of reproductive cloning.

Don't you see that your innate negative attitude toward cloning leads you to insist the embryos be "screened" to make sure no imprinting errors have occurred. 

But I don’t have a negative attitude toward cloning. All I’m asking is that cloning have the same success rates as traditional reproduction methods.

Why does "reproductive cloning" need to be "ethically justifiable"?

Because all public policy must be ethically justifiable.

[immortalitysystems.com]

"Because all public policy must be ethically justifiable" (Don Spanton)

I feel that what is ethically justifiable is to be determened by the situation and circumstances that exsist at the time and the value of the goal that is beeing persued. (situation ethics)

Public policy has the tendency to mantain the status quo. What we need now is a mutation of the memes we live by. What will be the trigger that makes all opposition to physical immortality unethicall (morally wrong).

HOMO IMMORTALIS will be a quantum leap. That means it will be outside the established rules (ethics).

[Lazarus Long]

Good, you folks are finally going for the meat of the issue and approaching tangentially why I suggest this issue is ultimately about our most basic atavist character as human beings.

I think you do well as a devil’s advocate Don and I doubt anyone will hold it against you for doing it well. I cannot speak for Randolfe but I am confident that I will not feel less friendship for you out of this. )

To return to a previous aspect that now better overlaps where this dialog is going:

Transhumanism (not merely cloning) approaches the very limits of what signifies *racial* in the common lexicon and certainly what is understood and defined biologically as race. The threat is derived of what we come up against as an unspoken conspiracy of ideas perceived collectively as a powerful image even when devoid of substance..

When I first mentioned this you immediately played the Eugenics counter spin and that is the very point why eugenics works as a counter argument.

It unites those that do not credit this fear of the *foreign* through their personal yuck factors. It allows those with a more discriminatory definition of what it is *to be human* (traditionalists) to control the debate and determine relevant issues.

However the bioconservatives are building a Maginot line on "Conception" the counter example should not be lost as Transhumanism leaps over that hardened *line* straight to the core issue which is: Does defining what it is to be human also limit its meaning, or does it expand it?

This is a direct analog of the forces that drive the evolution of any species in a convergent or divergent direction. Is it any wonder then that it strikes a most primal chord for all that are faced with thinking about it?

We are those expanding the idea of humanity and we should never allow others to cast us as *the threat.* Our opportunity for *freedom* to expand into new words, new bodies, new adaptive abilities is perceived by those that see equality as sameness as a divisive threat, opening a potentially unfair competition, one that destroys a *singular* understanding of what it means to be *human*.

We have seen now multiple examples of using the fear factor in domestic politics with the current constituency. This is how in the last election, what should be a non issue like gay marriage turns the vote percents to a winning margin when it’s close. This is how it justified a preemptive war policy when the actual threat was never really validated objectively. These are related examples because they demonstrate a fundamental shift in what motivates the electorate, an effective shift of power politics.

These were either directly *yuck factor* or *fear factor* decisions and they are all modern variants on latent racism. It even enters this debate through the discussion of parthenogenesis technology and chimeras. I suggest we take the association seriously because if I am correct xenophobia is at the core of much of the *yuck & fear factors* once they are not treated simply as a relatively mundane issue like body piercing or demystified into the actually more perverse image of little children playing with guns.

There are components of the yuck factor that are not racial but they are still visceral literally that is why I talk in terms of how this overlaps the actual mechanics of evolution. I am also saying we need to realize this strategy by the opposition because it is what we must counter early and strongly in a fashion that best promotes a return to rational discussion and analysis.

Don/Bio-C:

IOW, there is some validity in their cautious approach to the allowing truly "super human" capabilities crop up in our society. A renegade polymorph could do quite a bit of damage if we as a society do not have adequate counter measures in place (or perhaps human nature/disposition/ etc will change by this point?)

Don, that is the whole point, there is no reality in your suggested threat. Consider it some kind of inverse curse of the Highlander: *There will never be only one!*

Do you really think that we are going to make some kind of sudden quantum leap with any type of bio-technology such that the outcome you suggest becomes a real possibility?

These augmentations will evolve, albeit at a high rate in comparison to Natural Selection but Human Selection is still a lot trial and error. I expect that these types of fears are not only groundless but rooted in the evolutionary psychology of xenophobia. Human Racism is the last redoubt of traditional racism, it is also the first time it’s a real issue since Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal cohabited this planet.

The real issue isn't some renegade super fool, it is a pair of Transhumanists living in the suburbs procreating artificially some wunderkind that screws the curve on midterms for all the local normal humans. Is this not racism?

No one is paying attention then. In the silly X-Men example you replied to me with, you forgot how the mutants were obvious metaphors for the Blacks, Jews, and rebel youth when the States goes after them for the very reasons you gave. The X-Men were a metaphor describing the rebels standing up for human dignity and the preservation of social equality, against the ignorant and powerful, against even their own kind who seek to go too far (Magneto etc).

Most of what people really fear isn’t particularly rational.

It is more like complaining to your neighbor:

“Hey your kid is immune to smallpox!

Who gave you the right to have protection from a plague!” [angry]

A lot of alleged fear is also about envy, especially the envy of power perceived as violating principles of equality.

None of this tech is arriving on a silver platter; nothing is going to develop to the stage you describe in a vacuum bereft of contributory discoveries coming from competing forces from around the world, or from the politics of a world that does not feel obligated to compete through independent achievement in these areas. What they are most afraid of politically is empowerment that is not controlled by the current status quo.

Not racism you say?

We as a species have been augmenting ourselves for eons. That is all technology is, the expression of human adaptive form; clothes instead of fur, glasses instead of fumbling from blindness, social based civil infrastructures instead of isolated packs, agriculture instead of starvation. You all too often confuse technology for science. They are not equivalent. Technology depends on science but is driven by far more than scientific principle in the form of social demand.

Stopping science and technology in the United States will not stop this advance for our species but if the debate is allowed to make pariahs out of the Transhumanists then the bioconservatives here will have won. The idea that this is their likely MO (modus operandi) shouldn't be lost on everyone as they are not likely to jump off a winning horse and this approach does represent a significant unifying percent of their constituent base precisely because it appeals to them.

We must stop permitting those opposed to Therapeutic Cloning to define the parameters of the debate.

Many if not most people will irrationally *act out* their fears for what they little understand if offered a simplistic dichotomy of doing anything versus feeling helpless. The real debate is about what defines a person as *alive* and with therapeutic cloning it is who will define what it means to be human.

Almost by default we are breaking that definition a priori by claiming to be *other* than just human when we call ourselves *Transhumans*. It plays right into to the race switch and it is no accident that the bioconservative side is playing this card blind. But are they at all blind to this aspect of their tactics?

Aren't the Karl Rove’s of the Neo-Cons really looking for someone they can truly love to hate?

In a global society Tranhumanists are the closet example of an *evil alien* available that you will find to unite disparate groups against through their collective *hatred.* Cloning as an issue touches on very tender subjects like babies, the family, mom, the soul, and maybe even apple pie. Most people are simply not well versed enough to distinguish therapeutic techniques from reproductive ones anyway and this ignorance favors the bioconservative movement.

It is so ethnically messy in our modern world to just hate Islam, or Middle Easterners, Jews are definitely passé, especially as many of the Neo-Cons are Jews. They have to be watching their words so carefully. How convenient to have a significant subgroup volunteering to defend Supermen. Absolutely nobody (no common man) is going to trust them. )

Obviously we all see benefits along with the danger. We are looking at this in an informed and rational fashion. While the benefits are often overplayed they are mostly pragmatically valid possibilities. You are comparing those possibilities to *fear mongered* ones that are not even probable.

For starters let’s hold the Risk Assessments to the same standards of validity as you would the benefits. And my advice to everyone is to never give ground on this issue ever for it will come up again and again. We need to stop allowing and contributing to boogieman arguments. Never let others tell us what the shadows mean.

We must not allow this administration a moments rest and never let them again frame the debate. To do so allows them to force us into a trench war against their Maginot line. It is time to change the rules and develop the positive side with all the vigor and legitimacy possible and promote these ideas of opportunity publicly with so much detail that the very debate triggers a thousand new innovations.

Through this very debate we can leap the Maginot line they seek to bury us in stone with but only if we go beyond pandering to fear. If such ideas are credible then it should be possible to force those believing them to be so to present their data and techniques for examination. If they are legitimate they can also be countered with balancing force by alternative strategies. There are no swords that cannot be beaten into plowshares. There are no dual use technologies that cannot also be used for good.

It is about the power of *choice*; who will make the choices and whose record is that of a healer versus killer. I trust physicians, biotechnologists, and the CIVILIAN sector of society to better blaze this evolutionary path than structured government that is barely able to get out of its own way to protect us from itself.

I also trust transparent diverse competing social interests much more than the DoD, covert corporate, or underworld criminal elements who will inevitably take advantage of this *proscribed technology* such that they logically seek to monopolize its development, and in secret, creating a potentially far worse threat than most can yet imagine. It is pragmatically too late for moratoriums.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 27 January 2005 - 06:45 PM.

[DJS]

ImmortalitySystems:

"Because all public policy must be ethically justifiable" (Don Spanton)

I feel that what is ethically justifiable is to be determened by the situation and circumstances that exsist at the time and the value of the goal that is beeing persued. (situation ethics)

Immortality Systems, would you mind telling me how Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality.

Immortality is one of my highest order goals after all. Is it not one of yours also?

Would you mind explaining to me why I should support a technology which could result in deformed fetuses and infants, potentially creating an irrational backlash against all cloning technologies. Should one not, as an Immortalist, assign a hierarchy of values to attaining their goal? Wouldn't you place therapeutic cloning much higher on this heirarchy than reproductive cloning?

Why the hell would you risk your higher level values for lower level ones? [glasses]

[randolfe]

Well, this plate of thought is especially full. Like Lazarus Long, I hold no grudges because of Don's vigorous defense of his flawed analysis. In fact, I appreciate it because at times he challenges me to improve my arguments. Also, to the extent I win him over (even a little bit) I make him a stronger advocate for therapeutic cloning which we both support.

A few quick thoughts. I agree with Laz's argument that we have allowed the Neo-Cons to define too many debates. They've played to ignorant prejudices on a social level by marching into political battle behind "Anti-Gay Marriage" flags and have gotten a lot of poor people to vote in political leaders whose real agenda is abolishing social security, cutting health care, underfunding education, replacing public schools with religious ones, etc.

They have attempted to do the same regarding the cloning issue. Neo-Cons want to make reproductive cloning "the issue" so they can win the stem-cell debate. On that front, they have failed. The public has seen the promise of so-called therapeutic cloning and overwhelmingly supports it.

It is interesting that California and New Jersey and some other states are pouring huge resources into the very cloning research that the Federal Government has neglected.

Before I answer Don's long post, let me give a few short answers to some of the later questions and answers he has raised.

----------QUOTE------
"Immortality Systems, would you mind telling me how Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality"
----------QUOTE-------

Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality because it conveys continuation of life onto one's genotype, "the formula that constitutes you". During my days as a closeted Immortalist, I said that it would enable me to deny death its "traditional totality". It might not ensure the survival of all of me. However, so long as a blueprint of me walks the earth I have not totally disappeared from it.

I don't want to start induldging in too much science fiction here. However, what if a bone marrow transplant was necessary to revive those who had been cryogenically suspended? One of my later-born twins would be able to supply it.

In fact, a legendary cryonicist whose name would be familiar to almost everyone believes that having a living "later-born twin" would solve that most perplexing question cryonicists ask themselves:"But, even if revival is possible, who will want to do it fifty or a hundred years after I have died?"

------------QUOTE----------
Don also asks:"Would you mind explaining to me why I should support a technology which could result in deformed fetuses and infants, potentially creating an irrational backlash against all cloning technologies?"
------------QUOTE------------

When you support "therapeutic cloning" you are supporting the same technology that makes reproductive cloning possible. When you or Christopher Reeve attack the very idea of "reproductive cloning", you are shooting yourself in your pro-therapeutic-cloning foot.

If you read the literature, you will see that serious deformities result in miscarriage. Earlier, you argued :

--------QUOTE------
It is not ethically justifiable to use human reproductive cloning technologies when a significant percentage of the fetuses produced will either die late in their developmental trajectory, or -after birth-. This is a violation of the clone's rights and should not be permitted. 90%+ of bioethicists would agree with me.
------------QUOTE----------

Your projection a a significant percentage of fetuses dying before or after birth as a reason to deny reproductive cloning rights is an argument,( the very first argument rejected by an ethicist from the AMA at the NAAS conference in 1997),
that "it is better not to be born at all".

Your embrace that such an event (having a chance to be born and to live) violates
the child-conceived-through-cloning's rights. (I'll not use 'clone' for the same reason I don't use the N & other terms) You have just echoed the religious right's argument that a "fetus is a person". Do you know that in Louisana, if you punch a woman a few month's pregnant and cause a miscarriage, you can be prosecuted for murder?

When you start falling back on such statements as "90%+ of bioethicists would agree with me", you are truly getting desparate. The same percentage would agree that death is natural and should be accepted.

You are quite right that bad outcomes in early cloning attempts would create a backlash. However, the backlash would be against reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning has been accepted enough that even if a cloned embryo was taken from a laboratory for such an effort, the call would only be for "more rigorous controls" just as happens today when a mixup at a fertility clinic causes problems. No one calls for the elimination of fertility clinics.

Finally, you talk about "higher level values" and "lower level ones". Well, make your value choices but don't attempt to force them onto me. Having a later-born twin has been the highest value and highest goal in my life. It is not for you to tell me whether or not I shall have the right to pass on the gift of life to my later-born twin, nor to tell him that he (as a dehumanized 'clone'?) has no right to be born.

The quote you found in a book is lifted directly from my testimony to Congress. In fact, that is part of a short statement I included BOTH times I testified to Congress.

You can review my testimony at www.clonerights.com

[DJS]

Lazarus:

Don/Bio-C:

IOW, there is some validity in their cautious approach to the allowing truly "super human" capabilities crop up in our society. A renegade polymorph could do quite a bit of damage if we as a society do not have adequate counter measures in place (or perhaps human nature/disposition/ etc will change by this point?)

Don, that is the whole point, there is no reality in your suggested threat. Consider it some kind of inverse curse of the Highlander: *There will never be only one!*

Do you really think that we are going to make some kind of sudden quantum leap with any type of bio-technology such that the outcome you suggest becomes a real possibility?

Come on Laz, don't take my statement out of context and misrepresent what I'm saying!

Here's what followed that statement:

Where I disagree with the bio-cons is that I see benefit along with danger, and refuse to bludgeon the issue by supporting sweeping bans on all innovative technology. Simply put, I see "human nature" as adaptable and capable of making the necessary adjustments.

Regardless, such far off future speculations are uncalled for at this juncture and should not, IMHO, be part of the current debate.

[ang]

I'm not arguing that the challenges are insurmountable. What I'm saying is almost exactly what your saying -- "For starters let’s hold the Risk Assessments to the same standards of validity as you would the benefits", albeit with somewhat less sophistication (you do, after all, have thirty years on me). This is also Bostrom's position -- Status Quo Bias in Bioethics

I believe Bostrom does an excellent job defending the Transhumanist position and I'm not suggesting that we abandon our brethren. What I am suggesting is that on any giving team there is more than one position which can be played. I currently favor a more incremental approach. Let Bostrom and others over at WTA defend the right to cognitive enhancement, while we focus on life extension.

I think maybe this is where we are talking past one another. You are discussing the more broad and inclusive alliance of Transhumanism. I am discussing the best approach for the Immortalist submovment.

[DJS]

Two additional points:

1. Let's not confuse DonSpanton with bioconservative. I am beginning to see posters blur the line between us and I want to nip that in the bud right now. Bioconservative was entirely a "virtual personality". I devised his arguments to the best of my ability trying to keep in mind how a bio-con would think, but his positions are not my positions. In fact, the whole reason I ended my "presentation" was because I have limited time now that school is back in session and it takes a much, much longer time to compose posts for bioconservative.

2. I am not suggesting we allow the neo-cons to define the debate, but I am a pragmatist. I support whatever policies will best further our agenda. All too often the argument of "not allowing our opponents to define the debate" is used to justified a position that is both dogmatic and inflexible.

[randolfe]

I'll give short and punchy retorts to Don's long post.

------------QUOTE----------
The fact that the terms "clone" and "clonote" have had negative memetic baggage attach to them is regrettable, but I am afraid we are well past the point in the game where we get to define our terms (and yes, I'm playing with the phraseology here). It should also be noted that you have yet to even offer an alternative terminology.But no wait. Your stated policy isn't to redefine terms, but to do away with them all together.
------------QUOTE------------

I have only recently come across "clonote". You admit that this term and "clone" carry "negative memetic baggage". Both Gregory Pence and I offer alternative phrases, ones that are not so dehumanizing, "cloned child"(Pence) and "child conceived through cloning" (Wicker). The problem with the terms "clone" and "clonote" is that they deprive the subject of his/her humanity.

Wouldn't "cloned embryo" be sufficient? The reason Jaenisch and others have adopted this term is to fend off those who believe life begins once an egg has been fertilized. Those Right-to-Life zealots are going to have a harder time attacking those who are turning "clonotes" into stem cell cultures. At least these Right-to-Life people are consistent and say they will join me in the fight for my unborn-twin-brother's life once he is on the way.

Don't underestimate the importance of phraseology and definitions. "Pro-Life" is a more basically appealing term than "Pro-Choice". Homosexuals could make no headway in achieving their civil rights while homosexuality was defined as an illness. Homosexuals then made the mistake of being linguistically lazy and started using "gay rights" instead of "civil rights for homosexuals". That gave rise to the seemingly coherent charge: "Gay rights are special rights".

This whole issue of allowing the opposition to "define the debate" and the terms used in it is very important. The Religious Right managed to label the question as to whether all people should have "equal rights under the law" as a "Gay Marriage" debate. Gay activist groups stupidly fell into their trap. If the issue had not involved the word "marriage" (a religious ceremony) and had simply been seen as whether any couple should have the right to a "civil union", surveys show a majority of people would have supported it.

On abortion, when protesters scream: "Stop Killing Babies!", you will lose the argument if you concede those terms.

We see the same arguments among Immortalists as to whether to state our goals in terms of longevity and "greatly extended life spans" rather than a quest for immortality.

You are correct about the Duke study and the two copies of the Igf2r gene. I only questioned the date of the Ronald Bailey quote since I am a great fan of his, even said on Hannidy and Colmes that he did the greatest job of reporting on science in the nation.

You have to realize that what might be true in technology one day can totally change the next.

In that regard, you argued that reproductive cloning would have to be proven as safe as traditional reproduction before you would approve of it. Well, you should seek to outlaw all fertility treatments. They have a low success rate. There are all kinds of multiple births. Nearly all those middle-aged mothers you see pushing twin-carriages in the city have had fertility treatments.

-------------------QUOTE------------
DON SAYS: "But I will never allow my desire for progress to trump the rights of the individual within our society, because in doing so I would only attain a Pyrrhic victory. When your argument is broken down to its core components, what is left is the fact that you support reproductive rights over individual rights"
------------------QUOTE-------------

Once again you are invoking my non-existent later-born-twin's non-existent rights to deny my INDIVIDUAL reproductive rights.

Besides what I said earlier, I can see you believe Rudolf Jaenisch (an anti-cloning zealot of the worse sort). Well, we all pick our "resources". Leon Kass is the major "moral" voice against all kinds of cloning. Yet, if you go to his first long article in 1997 (New Republic) entitled "The Wisdom of Repugnance" you will see that even Leon Kass admits that it is difficult to argue against those asserting that cloning is a reproductive right. In fact, that is one reason Kass had to retreat from reasoned discussion and impart the concept of "wisdom" to the Yuk factor.

I have read Jaenisch's paper. Some of the technicalities left me confused. I spelled them out to two professionals and asked if I was interpreting Jaenisch correctly. One has not replied. The other's response was along the lines that Jaenisch was so biased that they were like Leon Kass's moral pronouncements, exercises in confusion and subterfuge and not really worth being concerned about.

(Perhaps, you can answer my question. I will send a copy of that letter to you if I can find it in a PM)

Finally, I'll copy a final exchange from your posting above:
------------ QUOTE ----------
"Every person's DNA is his or her personal property," Randolfe Wicker of the Cloning Rights United Front told the House committee.  "To have that DNA cloned into another extended life is part and parcel of his or her right to control his or her own reproduction."
-----------------------------

Now, I have heard you expressed statements to this effect before, but when I saw it in print it really caught my attention. Would this mean that identical twins "owned each other"? Would I own my clone? The contradictions are apparent, but what I find really shocking is the fact that you support the same debunked doctrine as that of our opposition on the President's Bioethics Council - Genetic Determinism Genetic determism, the philosophical position used by the bio-conservatives to justify their arguments for potentiality. How ironic, from one extreme to the other."
-------------QUOTE-----------

I am disappointed at your misinterpretation of my statement. I am asserting reproductive cloning as "my reproductive right" and (later on but implied above) as my "religious right" for my genotype to "live on into another lifetime".

When you ask if I would "own" my later-born twin, you reflect a really demonized science-fiction misconception about children conceived through cloning and those who do the cloning.

A child conceived through cloning would be a totally unique, free, independent individual. He could not "be owned". Things are owned. In science fiction, "clones" are owned because they are less-than-human property. In science fiction, those who conceive children through cloning are "bad" people. In real life, those who conceive a child trough cloning simply want progeny just as those who reproduce sexually.

In fact, since cloning is so difficult and difficult, that child conceived through cloning will be a most wanted child. Those bringing him into the world have a good idea as to what they will be getting and have gone to great trouble for just that reason. No Saturday Night mistake in the back seat of a car is going to produce a cloned child.

I will not get into theories of philosophical argument. I have no background in that area. However, I am much more a genetic determinist than most people. In fact, that is one area where Dr. Gregory Pence and I are on different ends of the spectrum.

Yes, I am what you might describe, loosely, as "a white male" and a "genetic determinist". The Neo-Cons you refer to may share those two characteristics. However, in a more total nuanced description, they resemble you much more than me!

Do vary your reading. Dr. Gregory Pence has several books well worth your time. Don't waste your time wallowing through Leon Kass's material. And don't be too snowed by Rudolf Jaenisch. He is just stubborn. He says "there is no such thing as a normal clone". When confronted with, say, five generations of cloned mice and other animals that are "normal" by all available measures, he will tell you that you "just haven't looked closely enough".

[benzealley]

(All quotes) Randolfe

Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality because it conveys continuation of life onto one's genotype, "the formula that constitutes you".  During my days as a closeted Immortalist, I said that it would enable me to deny death its "traditional totality".  It might not ensure the survival of all of me.  However, so long as a blueprint of me walks the earth I have not totally disappeared from it.

Do you actually think that your DNA constitutes "you"? I have a friend who is an identical twin and who gets on rather poorly with his brother; they have totally different goals, interests, and even rather different values. I would have thought it's fairly obvious that "you" associates better with your current environmentally-adjusted neural layout, not part of your biochemistry.

In fact, a legendary cryonicist whose name would be familiar to almost everyone believes that having a living "later-born twin" would solve that most perplexing question cryonicists ask themselves:"But, even if revival is possible, who will want to do it fifty or a hundred years after I have died?"

"The person I left a large sum of money (plus interest) to, conditional on their reviving me" always worked for me... I was never quite able to believe the rather wishy-washy answer in Alcor's FAQ.

When you support "therapeutic cloning" you are supporting the same technology that makes reproductive cloning possible.  When you or Christopher Reeve attack the very idea of "reproductive cloning", you are shooting yourself in your pro-therapeutic-cloning foot.

Of course, much as when someone attacks the idea of "nuclear weapons" they are entirely distancing themselves from "nuclear power"?

Finally, you talk about "higher level values" and "lower level ones".  Well, make your value choices but don't attempt to force them onto me.  Having a later-born twin has been the highest value and highest goal in my life.  It is not for you to tell me whether or not I shall have the right to pass on the gift of life to my later-born twin, nor to tell him that he (as a dehumanized 'clone'?) has no right to be born.

I would defend entirely* your right in principle to create a later-born twin, but I doubt I could ever support to an attempt to create a sentience that is (on the balance of probability) likely to suffer excessively; and here I would err on the side of caution, because a delay in producing children is emotionally upsetting for the parents-to-be, but the deliberate creation of suffering minds is utterly unacceptable.

Incidentally, Randolfe, I agree entirely with your opposal to the use of the word "clone" at least regarding humans - we don't talk about "blacks" or "gays", and there is no reason to use "clones". "People born through cloning" (or for brevity "cloned people"), on the other hand, I would have thought would be quite acceptable?

*e.t.a: That is to say, place it on equal level with child-production through traditional methods... which may or may not be appropriate depending on circumstances.

[randolfe]

Don Spanton argues:
1. Let's not confuse DonSpanton with bioconservative. I am beginning to see posters blur the line between us and I want to nip that in the bud right now. Bioconservative was entirely a "virtual personality". "

Well, I'll consider that argument. However, when I see that Don is now deserting the great and noble cause of "cognitive enchancement" and condemning my later-born twin to all those handicaps weighing on my shoulders, I'm not so sure he doesn't still secretly believe in "original sin"

Only a heartless bio-conservative would tell my poor defenseless later-born twin that he: would have terrible handwriting; would not be able to carry a tune; would be prone to skin-cancer because of his genes; would have a terrible memory especially for names; would develop cataracts; etc.

My later-born twin and all those yet-to-be born children deserve the best talents, the greatest health, etc. that we can give to them. I would not sacrifice all of that for short-term political gains like longevity for myself. To do that would be immoral and selfish

All of my life I have been voting for "the lesser evil" and "settling for the possible". The only time I violated that rule was in the New York Democratic Presidential Primary in 1988 when I just got fed up with all the mealy-mouth politicians and voted for the only man who stood for something (even though I did not support many of his policies) Jesse Jackson!

To this day, I am so proud that I had the guts to do that.

I don't have time to play parlor games with near-sighted moral misfits like Leon Kass. I know the future I want and I am going to fight for it! All of it!

[randolfe]

Benzeally says:" Do you actually think that your DNA constitutes "you"? I have a friend who is an identical twin and who gets on rather poorly with his brother; they have totally different goals, interests, and even rather different values. I would have thought it's fairly obvious that "you" associates better with your current environmentally-adjusted neural layout, not part of your biochemistry."

Of course, I am my "currently-adjusted neural layout" and not just the biochemistry of my genotype.

Your report about "identical twins" that do not get along is very atypical. Most identical twins have an especially close relationship. Read the studies on twins, even those separated at birth. This has been the source of my desire to have a later-born twin. I have always been a "singleton" who few understood.

---------QUOTE-----
BENZEALLY SAYS: "The person I left a large sum of money (plus interest) to, conditional on their reviving me" always worked for me... I was never quite able to believe the rather wishy-washy answer in Alcor's FAQ.
------------QUOTE--------------------------------

I can't tell if this is actually your own serious answer to the question as to who would revive you or if it is part of Alcor's literature. In either event, while money is a great motivator, I would rather rely on the genuine interest and passion of a living later-born twin. Money is such a corrupter. The administrator of the estate might be tempted to take the loot and run, legally or illegally.

------------QUOTE--------------
BENZEALLY SAYS:"Of course, much as when someone attacks the idea of "nuclear weapons" they are entirely distancing themselves from "nuclear power"?
--------------QUOTE---------------

I'm not sure if this is meant as a question or as a sarcastic comment on my statement. I would say that those who emphasize the dangers of the atom do weaken the argument for nuclear power.

Regarding cloning, I understood why Christopher Reeve joined all the others who attempted to separate "therapeutic cloning" from reproductive cloning. I only got mad when one of his group's press releases went so far as to say "reproductive cloning should be outlawed".

My letter to him said that paralysis, as bad as it might be, was not the only disability that could benefit from cloning technology. I said "infertility" was another disability, and that he should not seek to have this technology used only in ways that helped his particular disability.

[immortalitysystems.com]

Don Spanton (Quate)

Immortality Systems would you mind telling me how Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality.

Randolfe (Quote)

Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality because it conveys the continuation of life onto one's genotype, "the formula that consitutes you".

Thank you Randolfe, i could not have answered that question any better. I am in my sixtiies and the idea of raising a copy (clone) of myself at this point in my life feels like something i could realy put my heart and mind into. I am sure it would keep me young. Just in case that in the next 20 or so years we don't have the pill to induce growing younger again, i would have down/uploaded my lives experiences to my "twin". It seems to be a real challenging experiment.

An other thougt that often enters my mind is, when i see parents mourne their only 18 or so years old child that died in some accident. They should have the option of raising a new edition (clone). Seeing a story like that in the News, it often sounds like it is the last offspring of a long genotype. I makes me thing, what a waste, that all the many generations of human effort accumulated are coming to an end. Specialy when the picture on TV of the young person that is beeing buried shows someone especialy beautifull and talented.

Reproductiv cloning must and will be an option in the persuit of Physical Immortality. I don't even want to talk about the potential options of fuseing an older person with a younger clone.

Remember, the only limit is our imagination. Take a look around you, to see what nature has done with that dynamic. (we are part of nature)

[benzealley]

Randolfe
Your report about "identical twins" that do not get along is very atypical.  Most identical twins have an especially close relationship.  Read the studies on twins, even those separated at birth.  This has been the source of my desire to have a later-born twin.  I have always been a "singleton" who few understood.

A sentiment I can sympathise with; although I rather enjoy my uniqueness at this point in my life, it may be that I'll become more inclined to loneliness later. I realise that most identical twins are very close (although those raised apart tend to be less so, and you and your twin would of course be growing up in very different environments) - I'm just pointing out that it's not guaranteed.

Randolfe
I can't tell if this is actually your own serious answer to the question as to who would revive you or if it is part of Alcor's literature.

It's my answer. Alcor share (approximately) your sentiment that one's descendants will want to revive their preserved ancestors. I think that's a lovely idea, I'm just not certain that I'm willing to stake my life on it, so I would as always try to have a back-up plan.

Randolfe
I'm not sure if this is meant as a question or as a sarcastic comment on my statement.  I would say that those who emphasize the dangers of the atom do weaken the argument for nuclear power.

Regarding cloning, I understood why Christopher Reeve joined all the others who attempted to separate "therapeutic cloning" from reproductive cloning.  I only got mad when one of his group's press releases went so far as to say "reproductive cloning should be outlawed".

My letter to him said that paralysis, as bad as it might be, was not the only disability that could benefit from cloning technology.  I said "infertility" was another disability, and that he should not seek to have this technology used only in ways that helped his particular disability.

I do have a habit of phrasing things in a frivolous way. It was, I suppose, half rhetorical, and half an observation that there is an enormous difference between a technology and its applications.

I don't think reproductive cloning should be outlawed, but I do think there should be a moratorium on it until we are able to produce healthy clones of, say, chimps, with a similar success rate to natural reproduction. Otherwise you are impinging on the rights of your later-born twin by placing him at undue risk of suffering from a serious illness!

(I'm not very happy with the ring of potentiality in the phrasing above... it might be better to say "acting unethically by risking the creation of a sentience at undue risk of suffering", but I'm going to stick with your terminology for the sake of simplicity and refer to the "rights" of as-yet-nonexistent individuals.*)

immortalitysystems.com
... i would have down/uploaded my lives experiences to my "twin"...
They should have the option of raising a new edition (clone)...
I don't even want to talk about the potential options of fuseing an older person with a younger clone.

"People as ends, not as means!"
I think the most troubling issue by far with reproductive cloning is that it stands to exacerbate the existing tendency of parents to try and "mould their children after themselves" (or, equally well, after a late sibling). This tendency is implicated as responsible for many of the "issues" suffered by teenagers (just listen to pop music) and some adults. I have no objection to your desire to have a child who happens to share your DNA - I have a serious objection to the implication that you are likely to try and coerce that child to "follow in your footsteps".

Randolfe, you also showed a tendency towards this earlier -

Randolfe
Those bringing him into the world have a good idea as to what they will be getting and have gone to great trouble for just that reason.

The implication being that the parent(s) are going to be dissatisfied if their new child doesn't turn out according to their hopes... also;

Randolfe
In real life, those who conceive a child trough cloning simply want progeny just as those who reproduce sexually.

If this were actually true, I fail to see why they would choose a more expensive, more dangerous (for the child) and more controversial method in place of some other type of assisted reproduction (or adoption!). Indeed, the remarkably low rate of adoption - particularly of older children - shows, I think, exactly how many people want a child to nurture as an individual. [ang]

*eta: Actually, you specifically denounced the existence of rights for non-existent individuals, so I retract this comment. There is an inevitable tone of potentiality about discussions of children-to-be, I suppose - I apologise for blaming you specifically for it.

[DJS]

Do vary your reading.

Randolfe, you know I'm a voracious reader.

Don't waste your time wallowing through Kass's material

I'm not exactly sure how I can show you the error of your ways, but this statement illustrates your faulty conceptual framework all too well. I have read a great deal of Kass' material, and will continue to do so in the future. It provides me with priceless insights into his perspective which I would not other wise be able to acquire. You really need to embrace my Mill quote if you ever hope to advance in your understanding of the ethical issues revolving around cloning technologies.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." John Stuart Mill

And don't be too snowed by Rudolf Jaenisch. He is just stubborn. He says "there is no such thing as a normal clone". When confronted with, say, five generations of cloned mice and other animals that are "normal" by all available measures, he will tell you that you "just haven't looked closely enough".

What you have stated here is absolutely FALSE. You shouldn't make statements without proper verification. This is once again indicative of your desire to "tar and feather" your opposition. If you took the time to review the link I supplied to MITWorld you would see that Jaenisch comments on this very subject. He is quite clear that, although the original cloned individuals would exhibit a higher rate of malformation, their offspring (created by the traditional proceative process) would be absolutely, 100% normal. The reason for this is that the epigenetic factors which are necessary for successful imprinting would once again be present (separately) in both the spermatazoon and the oocyte.

[DJS]

Wouldn’t “cloned embryo” be sufficient?

Sure, but this is not how you originally presented the issue. You did not offer alternative terminology. Now that you have done so I have no problem using this slightly different lingo. So let’s go with “cloned zygote” instead of “clonote” and “cloned individual” instead of “clone”…better now?

Good, now let us get to the “Principle Issues” being debated. The position you are advocating is deeply flawed and IMO unbeneficial to the Immortalist movement.

But before I begin my argument as to why your position is flawed, I believe it is necessary to correct the tendency you have of labeling your opposition.

Randolfe, when you make statements like this:

1.  Besides what I said earlier, I can see you believe Rudolf Jaenisch (an anti-cloning zealot of the worst sort).

2.  Only a heartless bio-conservative would tell my poor defenseless later-born twin that he:  would have terrible handwriting; would not be able to carry a tune; would be prone to skin cancer because of his genes…

3.  However, when I see that Don is now deserting the great and noble cause of “cognitive enhancement” and condemning my later-born twin to all those handicaps weighing on my shoulders, I’m not so sure he doesn’t still secretly believe in “original sin.”

you are revealing more about your own inherent biases than those of whom you are trying to attack. Jaenisch is an “anti cloning zealot of the worst sort”?!? Randolfe, that’s slander. Come on man, you’re better than that. Jaenisch is a very well respect scientist who happens to oppose reproductive cloning on the grounds of efficacy (as does Michael West and many others). Is anyone who opposes (or seeks to regulate) reproductive cloning a zealot to you? Is that how you see the world?

In the second paragraph I highlighted you again attempt to label your opposition. “Only a heartless bio-conservative would…” This is an outlandish statement. Is anyone who opposes reproductive cloning on any grounds a bio-con to you? What a very myopic, black and white view of the world you maintain.

Finally, in the last paragraph you tell a complete falsehood about my position. I have not abandoned the cause of cognitive enhancement. In fact, I am a much stronger advocate of this particular cause than you, with your rather conservative vision of the future, will ever be. Your thinly veiled innuendo in the second sentence is also rather unfortunate and another example of your zealotry seeping out into your projected presence here on this thread.

When you make statements like the ones I have highlighted above, you are effectively saying, ”You’re either with us, or you’re with the enemy.” That’s the position of a fundamentalist…Wbaya would be so proud.

“We have met the enemy, and they are us.” Pogo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason that Randolfe’s position is flawed:

Randolfe, I’m sorry buddy, but you’ve hung yourself with your own words. Very shortly, it is going to become clear to most Immortalists reading this thread that you suffer from an illogical thought process which manifests itself in the defective position you espouse.

I am much more a genetic determinist than most people.

I am what you might describe, loosely, as a “white male” and a “genetic determinist”.

So you openly admit to being a genetic determinist (an inherently flawed position, but I’ll leave that alone for now). Great, we’re getting somewhere. This primary mode of philosophical thought then leads you to this position:

Reproductive cloning advances the pursuit of Physical Immortality because it conveys continuation of life onto one's genotype, "the formula that constitutes you". During my days as a closeted Immortalist, I said that it would enable me to deny death its "traditional totality". It might not ensure the survival of all of me. However, so long as a blueprint of me walks the earth I have not totally disappeared from it.

Your argument that reproductive cloning [conveys continuation of life onto one’s genotype, the “formula that constitutes you”], is a purely metaphysical claim (much like the bioconservative’s claims for potentiality) which can in no way be substantiated (proven or disproven). Put another way, your claim is unfalsifiable, much like the Christian claim that “on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures.”

“No,” you would emphatically reply. “My argument is a philosophical argument, not a relgious one.”

Well, that’s great. I would love to debate and analyze the validity of your philosophical position. But wait…oops, can’t do that either:

I will not get into theories of my philosophical argument.

So here we have a *non-debatable* *unfalsifiable* *metaphysical claim* about the nature of existence which you are trying to push off on members of the ImmInst community as a legitimate means to attaining Physical Immortality.

You want to know what one of my favor quotes in the whole world is Randolfe?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." --  Douglas Adams

Your entire argument that *Reproductive Cloning supports Physical Immortality* is based on an act of faith. Faith -- the notorious mechanism for forming belief that has been exposed, time and time again, as defective in its ability to produce accurate results.

You’re asking us to buy into your religion.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let you say it yourself!

I am asserting reproductive cloning as "my reproductive right" and (later on but implied above) as my "religious right" for my genotype to "live on into another lifetime".

Okay, so you believe that somehow your genotype constitutes your “soul”. That’s find with me man. As I’ve always said, “To each his own.” I vigorously support your right to have your religious belief, but you should know something ahead of time-- I don’t drink the kool-aid buddy boy. [8)] [":)]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oops wait, hold the presses – this just came in. It seems that maybe this isn’t your position after all…

A child conceived through cloning would be a totally unique, free, independent individual.

Now wait a minute, which one is it? You’re saying that my clone isn’t me. But if it isn’t me, then reproductive cloning is not furthering the goal of my physical immortality?

Bam! You’ve just hit the cold hard wall of logic. You can’t have it both ways. Either (A) reproductive cloning does not promote Physical Immortality or (B) cloned individuals are not independent sentient beings.

However, let’s assume for the moment that cloned individuals are independent, unique human beings. Again, if this is the case then it would logically follow that reproductive cloning does not further the goal of Physical Immortality. And if it does not further the goal of Physical Immortality, then it must necessarily be lower on an Immortalist’s “hierarchy of values” than other values which actively promote the primary goal. And if this is the case, then [b]reproductive cloning should not be support by Immortalists unless its inherent political costs are judged to be absolutely negligible. At the present time this is clearly not the case.

Your move

[randolfe]

Well, Don, when you are boxing in the ring, you throw that sure "knock-out" punch the first chance you get. Your first patently wrong statement in the above posting, in which you regrettably stoop to trying to label me as being a mystical religionist when I only 'worship' knowledge, logic and wisdom, went as follows:

--------------------QUOTE-------------------------
DON SAYS: "Your argument that reproductive cloning [conveys continuation of life onto one’s genotype, the “formula that constitutes you”], is a purely metaphysical claim (much like the bioconservative’s claims for potentiality) which can in no way be substantiated (proven or disproven). Put another way, your claim is unfalsifiable, much like the Christian claim that “on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures.”
---------------------QUOTE----------------------

The way you determine an animal is a clone is to determine that it shares the same genotype as the cell donor whose cell was injected into the egg. Sharing the same "genotype" determines that a later-born animal is a "clone" (since I'm speaking of animals and not humans here).

Obviously, my later-born twin would constitute my genotype living on into another lifetime. I think I have made it clear in earlier postings that my genotype, "the formula of me", is not the now-living virtual person writing these words.

I don't want to waste too much time answering Don's questions since Immortalitysystems.com and Benzeally have raised some more interesting matters. However, the following deserves response:

----------------QUOTE-----------------
DON SAYS:"Jaenisch is a very well respect scientist who happens to oppose reproductive cloning on the grounds of efficacy (as does Michael West and many others). Is anyone who opposes (or seeks to regulate) reproductive cloning a zealot to you? Is that how you see the world?"
--------------QUOTE-----------------------

Jaenisch and Michael West are respected scientists, just as Leon Kass is a respected physician, scholar and bioethicist. However, people often take "public postions" because politics and economics demand it. Jaenisch is a "paid consultant" to West's Advanced Cell Technology.

Michael West's fight to pursue his therapeutic cloning research and the cloning of prize cattle, both of which (at least the animal-cloning business) he has recently abandoned, would be never find financial or public support unless he distanced himself from reproductive cloning.

Those who insist "there is no such thing as a normal clone" despite mounting evidence to the contrary are certainly verging on zealotry. Michael West is simply a PR man and a master of "spin".

When I had lunch with Michael West at the Albany Law Suposium where we both
gave presentations, I told him I frequently described him as "someone who could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to the Mayor of NYC".

He didn't think that sounded so great. I guess I spoke too frankly. I knew how he had so snowed a reporter for US News & World Report that she went back and turned in a full-cover-page story they headlined "The World's First Cloned Embryo".

I like Michael West. I defend him and his undertakings during appearance on television. I emphasize that he is strickly interest in therapeutic cloning, not reproductive cloning, etc. His chapter in our first Imminst book is moving and inspiring. He is a gifted evangelist for important medical research.

I do not oppose responsible control of reproductive cloning. If Don did his homework, he would know that Dr. Gregory Pence believes cloning should be perfected in other primates before it is ever attempted in humans.

This leads into more pertinent issues raised by benzeally:

-----------------------QUOTE----------------
BENZEALLY SAYS:"I don't think reproductive cloning should be outlawed, but I do think there should be a moratorium on it until we are able to produce healthy clones of, say, chimps, with a similar success rate to natural reproduction. Otherwise you are impinging on the rights of your later-born twin by placing him at undue risk of suffering from a serious illness!"
----------------------QUOTE-----------------------

This is reasonable. I had the opportunity to attempt being cloned at a fertility clinic in India. I choose not to take the risk simply because I did not want to risk having a later-born twin burdened by handicaps. I agree with the clarification (not printed above) which simply says it would be wrong/immoral to purposely cause a child to be born with terrible handicaps.

However, this reminds me of a question the Jesuits ask high school students. I am going from memory here but , despite any errors, you will get the point.

"Would you allow an alcoholic woman, suffering from mental illness and infected with sysphillis bear a child?" (This question is asked after a lecture is given telling the students about how alcohol can result in retardation and sysphillis can blind an unborn child, etc.)

If a student answers "no", the priest tells them: "You have just aborted Mozart!"

------------QUOTE-----------------
BENZEALLY ALSO SAYS: I have no objection to your desire to have a child who happens to share your DNA - I have a serious objection to the implication that you are likely to try and coerce that child to "follow in your footsteps".

Randolfe, you also showed a tendency towards this earlier -

QUOTE
Randolfe
Those bringing him into the world have a good idea as to what they will be getting and have gone to great trouble for just that reason. "

--------------------------QUOTE-------------------------

No one can force anyone to "follow in their footsteps". If you read the study of identical twins, including those separated at birth, you will see that more things than we ever thought are genetically based.

You wouldn't have to "coerce" a later-born twin regarding many things. If you were athletic, given a healthy womb environment, so would he. He would share you taste in music, food and colors.

If you were deeply religious, he would share that quality since religiousity is a shared characteristic among identical twins.

However, there could be areas of great differences too. You could be very extroverted and your later-born twin very shy. Also, if you were very creatively gifted, your later-born twin might be much less so. Those traits vary much more among identical twins.

Cloning is somewhat akin to genetic engineering. It is almost like 100% genetic engineering because you get "the entire package", warts and all. That is why I made a list of my own genetic shortcomings above.

Many parents try to "live on" or "control" the destiny of their children without cloning being involved. We all agree that this usually leads to disaster. With cloning, parents (or parent if you prefer) would have a child they would understand in a very special way.

I ask you: "Wouldn't you be a better parent for yourself than either of your parents have been for you?"

For that matter, don't you think you would be a good parent to the later-born twin of one of your parents? Who do we know better than our parents! If Mother was a hypochondriac, we could discourage that. If Dad had musical gifts, we would see he got musical training early in life.

------------------QUOTE-----------------
BENZEALLY ALSO ASKS: " QUOTE
Randolfe
In real life, those who conceive a child trough cloning simply want progeny just as those who reproduce sexually. "END QUOTE RANDOLFE

If this were actually true, I fail to see why they would choose a more expensive, more dangerous (for the child) and more controversial method in place of some other type of assisted reproduction (or adoption!).
--------------------QUOTE----------------

The similarity lies in the fact that people go to great expense because people want to have their own children. It is very easy to tell infertile couples that they "should adopt" while you and the rest of the fertile world almost always choose to raise you own progeny.

I think it is wonderful when two people fall in love and have wanted children through sexual coupling. That will always be the choice of most people.

However, what if someone has not met a member of the opposite sex with whom they wish "to merge genetically" in sexual reproduction?

I agree "single parenthood" is more difficult. Two parents are generally better than one. (That is so long as the two parents are not a dysfunctional couple who fight all the time and put the innocent kids in the middle.)

However, I side with a young Isreali lawyer, one of our Clone Rights volunteers, (an identical twin himself by the way) who feels he "should not have to go out and mix his genes with another person" in order to reproduce.

The concept of " the right to single parenthood" doesn't exist yet. Only with cloning will it become possible. Cloning enables human beings to reclaim the oldest and simplist form of reproduction. Less complicated organisms reproduce by simply "dividing", by cloning themselves.

I'll not go on right now regarding that. Yes, sexual reproduction is obviously a superior method of reproduction from a long range evolutionary point of view.

However, if cloning had been possible sixty years ago, we could have a dozen or more later-born twins of Albert Einstein with all kinds of promising potential in the world today.

I have gone on for too long already. Finally, I'd like to dance the light fantastic and induldge my fantasy and imagination in answering the following:

----------------------------------QUOTE------------------------

IMMORTALITYSYSTEMS.COM SAYS:I am in my sixtiies and the idea of raising a copy (clone) of myself at this point in my life feels like something i could realy put my heart and mind into. I am sure it would keep me young. Just in case that in the next 20 or so years we don't have the pill to induce growing younger again, i would have down/uploaded my lives experiences to my "twin". It seems to be a real challenging experiment. ........ I don't even want to talk about the potential options of fuseing an older person with a younger clone.

-----------------QUOTE--------------------

Yes, imagine having the opportunity of raising your later-born twin, of having a child who is not "an alien running around the house" but simply in many-but-not-all ways 'another you'.

This child would understand you just as you are able to understand him. Real communication as only identical twins experience today. You could advise him, share the experiences you have had in life and, hopefully, he will both understand and listen.

Of course, as one friend warned, "If your later-born twin is as rebellious and independent-minded and strong-willed as you are, Randy, he just might 'up-and-slit-your-throat'". (Now, there is a sobering and disturbing counter-thought to the parenting utopia I am describing.)

Well, if I am going to invest my life's energy into raising a child, I'll take my chances by having another as much like me as possible. Nothing is guaranteed. However, that sure beats rolling the dice in today's genetically lottery and being stuck with whatever comes out.

That's not to say, most people don't do pretty well in the genetic lottery. I had one set of parents who wsanted to clone their dead daughter because she had been "the only fruit of their union". They were now infertile and "didn't want to clone a later-born twin or either of themselves" but wanted to clone their deceased young daughter because they felt she was "the sum of them."

Of course, I would support them in that effort. But remember that the genetic lottery can be very cruel. Einstein had a child that was schizophrenic and ended up spending his life in a mental hospital.

Finally, the idea of not just a real sharing of life-experiences through special parenting but the actual "merging" of two people is really getting into science fiction.

However, those who believe "uploading" and "downloading" of memories or even of "their whole self" into computers will some day be possible should find the idea of either "merging" or "sharing life experience and memories" with a later-born or earlier-born twin to be an intriguing concept.

For now, I'm happy just being my independent progenator original twin self