Re: The Cloning Debate (again)

Dana & Laurie Kissick (
Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:35:53 -0500


I think you will find that most, or all individuals on this list share
your concerns of state interference with personal choice matters (drugs,
etc); and that most, or all are also appalled at the depths to which
GOVERNMENTS have sunk.
Your nightmare scenario of funcloning is close to what I would envision if
elitists (governments) are left in control of technologies such as cloning
(FDA). Except in the case of the elitists I see the technology being used
to create and control soldiers who are never exposed to any social
interaction beyond their highly trained tightly knit units. I wonder if,
without any interaction with average individuals, these clones would have a
normal resistance to initiating violence. Sadly, the past points to many
examples of people who were raised in semi civil societies turning out
extremely violent due to destructive memes ( fascism, socialism, statism,
luddism). Just imagine what the Marine of the future could be like!
Due to the above argument, I propose that the future will be much safer
with cloning available on the free market rather than controlled by the
elite. It is kinda like computers; the more widespread and available they
are, the less likely it is that they will be used to oppress us.
You seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth when you rail against a
prison state and attack the freemarket in the same letter. If not a
freemarket what? A prison market?
Here's the applicable quote for the day:
"It's a far easier thing to have a firm anchor in ignorance than to set out
on the troubled seas of thought."
I have no clue who I am quoting, just felt it fit in with any response to
your letter.

Dana Lee Kissick
> From: Erik Moeller <>
> To:
> Subject: The Cloning Debate (again)
> Date: Saturday, January 10, 1998 1:27 PM
> Of course this is perfectly in the line of
> thinking of a free market capitalist. In his view, humans have always
> products, and this is also true even today. We prostitute ourselves when
> offer our services for money, making us loan-slaves. If we don't agree
with a
> society of loan-slavery, we must either depend on charity (provided by
> state or local organizations in an always decreasing level) or starve.
> And a human is just a product.
> Which means, of course, that the clone we've bought might be a nice toy
> especially if it's made of DNA of a famous personality. But it might get
> boring tomorrow and be disposed. You'd buy a clone not because you want a
> child, but because you want a toy. And who keeps his modern teddy bear
> forever? Who cares for it when you don't want it anymore? Would you send
> teddy bear to a school? No? So what does the clone do when he has grown
up and
> nobody wants him anymore?
> Also, history has shown what humans can do to other humans when they're
> the right to do whatever they want to do to them. For example, at times
> In WW II, a brothel was created for female Jews who were later (after
> used, as the products they had become) disposed in the gas chambers. Ah,
> guess we'll find some fellows who doubt this on this funny little mailing
> list, too. After all, you seriously discuss "child rearing" and the right
> the possession of guns here.
> Back to the present. The main problem with free cloning is what I've
> as "Funcloning" in my article. Clones as products/toys for a privileged
> biological cloning will always be expensive) minority seem much more
> than clones as a good means of reproduction for infertile humans or
> pairs. In addition, even clones used in deadly gameshows are imaginable.
Or in
> a human zoo.
> Already today, humans are enslaved in American prisons to provide
> These prisons are getting a major competitor on the free market. And what
> you do when you need more workers? You recruit them, by spreading a
> crack or selling a few weapons and having the police already at hand when
> gets interesting. A prison state is not just a dark fantasy anymore, some
> already *call* America a prison state.
> Eugene Leitl, you have described what I call Funcloning as "neoluddism".
> Another fancy keyword. But who's the one who has fun here? Progess is
> Cloning is OK if it is used by those who need it. But humans must not be
> more product-like than they already are.
> Otherwise your beloved singularity will remain a wet dream for your
> --
> **
> Chief Editor of Homo Excelsior: The Transhumanist's Magazine
> **