Re: CLONING: "Human Being, or Human Folly?"

From: J Corbally (
Date: Mon Mar 12 2001 - 16:22:49 MST

>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:30:14 +1100
>From: Damien Broderick <>
>Subject: Re: CLONING: "Human Being, or Human Folly?"
>At 09:49 PM 11/03/01 -0500, JimF wrote (although he ought by now have been
>wrapped deep inside the joys of GEB):
> >Hmmm.. Are the cloned offspring also expected to have dud semen?
> >(Guaranteed continued market for these medical services ;->).
>Well, presumably yes, unless sterility was a stochastic developmental
>error, but by the time *they're* ready to start making babies in the
>overpopulated mid-2020s or even 2040s one can perhaps hope better fixes
>will be available, not to mention uploading, nano-optimizing, yadda yadda.
>Not that the cloning docs will have thought of this, I expect.
>Damien Broderick

Club Tropicana, drinks are freeee.........

I'd been thinking about this too. But then again, I would think most male
infertility is environmental in it's cause (mumps etc.)? I've no figures
on this, so I could be radically wrong, but I didn't think nature selected
for sterile men. In which case most of these kids wouldn't have the
problem. Would they?

It was clever of the scientist in charge to pull in the machismo memes
though, esp. being based in Italy. I'm sure it irks many men that current
techniques require another mans' sperm.

Wham! Bam!, I am, a man......


"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and
crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures
to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-Q, Star Trek:TNG episode 'Q Who'

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT