Re: here we go and then some ....

Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Sat, 10 Jan 1998 15:10:37 -0500

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > [Regarding the legal status of cloning]
> > As usual the popular media has latched on to this as a headline grabber
> > designed to attract a scientifically ignorant mass audience. Regrettably,
> > most of the editors in the mass media seem to be as scientifically ignorant
> > as their readers and viewers. As to the general morality of most of the
> > editors of the media, I somehow doubt that many of them even know the
> > meaning of the word.
>
> That's not a meaningful criticism of the press; you and I personally
> have just about opposite definitions of "moral", yet we happen to
> agree (contrary to the minority) that the act of cloning yourself
> is OK. The relevant question to me seems to be "What are the real
> memetic influences that make the majority believe what they do, and
> what can we do about it?" I think blaming religion here falls
> short of the whole story. Even many avowed atheists are uncomfortable
> with the idea. Some who are all in favor of "technology" when it's
> made of plastic are less enthusiastic when it comes to cells.
>
> What is it that they fear? What can we do to assuage that fear or
> (often more effective) to ridicule it?
>

SInce people view their genes as 'theirs', and that they as individuals
don't want anybody out there being produced from their genes without
their knowledge or say so. This is an entirely rational privacy issue.
Where people go wrong is that since they cannot ever conceive of a
personal need for the technology (unless they happen to be an unluck
sterile individual), then the only real use for it would be by
governments or corporations to do their own experimentation on a persons
genes without their knowledge (would you feel good if your offspring
were being tortured and enslaved??), or even being able to replace
people in a 'body snatcher' kind of way. The other meme out there is the
religious one that views anything but completely natural conception and
birth as unnatural, against gods will, etc. The old "if man were meant
to fly, god would've given him wings" routine, despite the high
percentage of the existing population who survived childbirth only due
to drastic technological intervention.

I also think that the word "cloning" has a negative semantic value.
Pro-cloning people should publicly redefine their position with a much
more acceptable catch phrase, like 'artificial twinning', 'assisted
twinning', much in the way pro-abortion activists redefined themselves
as "Pro-Choice", while the anti-'choice' activists redefined themselves
as "Pro-Life". Both phrases seem to be representing positive things that
all people would like to be for.

I would be interested to hear from Kathryn what the Pro-Choice
establishment feels about Assisted Twinning....

-- 
TANSTAAFL!!!
			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@together.net	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
------------------------------------------------------------
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?