<< >On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 ShawnJ99@aol.com wrote:
>
>I would say that they would both be accountable for past actions
>(before cloning), so they should both be put on trial
>together. >>
>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
>For serious offenses, prison with the option of assisted suicide is the
>most humane thing to do.
>As for neural modifications, I would doubt that
>they would be effective, without destroying the victims personality.
For the record, it appeared that I was being quoted as saying all the above,
but in fact, those were someone else's responses to things which I had said.
Here are my responses to U.Sov.'s final comments:
>Furthermore, I think that the resources of the original should
>be divided equally with the clone, as the clone was just as responsible
>for achiveing the wealth as the original.
>Cloning is giving birth to a life form.
>Must I give up half of what I own to a child not yet born?
I would say that, in the case of complete and perfect replication (intact
with memories), not just regular cloning, then the copy is in fact just as
much the original as was the original at the time of the copy. Thus, it
would be inaccurate to say it is "a child not yet born". If you walk into a
duplication chamber of some type, and knowingly copy yourself, the "you" that
comes out of the side marked "the copy", will be no less the person who
originally walked into the duplication chamber than the person who comes out
of the side marked "the original". It's not like a photo copying machine,
where there is a 15% degradation in quality. It is 100% the original. I
think the question of "who's who" loses meaning in the debate. The fact is
you slit into two pieces (seemingly).
I would like to furthur one of my original comments which few people have
picked up upon. The question of "punishment". The only form of punishment I
think to be valid is to have the "criminal" make restitution to the best of
his/her/its ability, then to work on changing the original "flaw" which
caused the crime. Remember, I speak only of real crimes, not socially
imagined ones (rampant in the imaginations of many). To simply "punish"
someone causes no net benefit to anyone, but is rather a form of revenge. I
see no purpose in prisons at all. Either do as I suggest, or impliment a
death penalty. I opt for the prior. If someone is truely "beyond help", if
there is such a thing, then either hold them in a special labor camp until we
can neurally restructure them, or put them into cryo-stasis until that time.
This would be the most logical and "humane" thing to do. If anyone has
anything to add, please do so.
In response to another statement:
>As for neural modifications, I would doubt that
>they would be effective, without destroying the victims personality.
>That's the point, to give them a new personality through brain-washing.
>It is being done.
I don't think neural restructuring would destroy the original person. I'm
only speaking of eliminating the particular characteristic which is harmful
(pleasure in killing, raping, stealing, etc.). It would be the best thing
anyone could do for the person. It involves less force than would killing
the person. Force is not to be used EXCEPT in self defense or preventing an
"insane" person from doing furthur harm. 'Til next time, Shawn Johnson.