Brian D Williams wrote:
> Being an usual admirer of George Will's writing I was disappointed
> to read this, but I'm going to guess he did this mostly on the
> grounds of his religious convictions, and not because he is one of
> those who would rather play the lottery than invest.
> However I should note that I don't see any particular advantage to
> cloning humans. Working with the technology sure, but other than
> that it would seem to be more an act of an overactive ego. I don't
> see many of us as a successful enough phenotype to merit it.
What about cloning for body part replacements? Is all you are simply a
"phenotype"? Do you believe that you have the right to keep others from
extending their lives by any and all means that do not violate the
rights of others? Is it your business to decide whether or not this or
that individual or all such individuals 'deserve' to live longer or to
create more copies of themselves by means of sex (partial copies) or
cloning (total genetic copies)? No? Then I do not understand the above
statement. 'Merit it' according to whom? Continued life is its own
Now, if you mean simply making copies of myself, I would say that too
could have merit if those copies can support themselves productively.
Who would decide who should be cloned or not? Why not simply let the
> Deliberate cloning is low breed stuff, or to put it in an easily
> spreadable meme:
> "cloning is for livestock."
You are welcome to your opinion, of course, just as long as you don't
wish to see it enforced as more than that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:23 MDT