Re: Human Cloning: The Trade-In Strategy

Lee Daniel Crocker (
Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:42:13 -0800 (PST)

> As I'm sure most of you have already realized, this technology suggests a
> "quick and dirty" approach to transcending the "natural" human lifespan.

I don't see anything of the sort. In fact, I'm rather dismayed that
the press is treating this cloning success as something interesting,
when it's really nothing special or useful at all. We already know
exactly what the relationship between two genetically identical beings
is: we've seen identincal twins for centuries. Clones just happen to
be identical twins of more different ages, so the "identity" issue is
even more irrelevant there. And a clone of yourself, while it might
be nice to have a child with 100% of your genes instead of 50%, would
probably die young after being infected with germs from you that have
had 100s of generations to adapt to your--and therefore his--immune
system. That's probably why sexual reproduction is here in the first
place (I find Ridley's arguent compelling). The genetic mixing helps
a long-generation organism keep ahead of the short-generation bugs.

Why expend effort on genetic stagnation?