Re: The Cloning Debate (again)

James Rogers (
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:36:01 -0800

At 03:29 PM 1/11/98 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>Randall R Randall wrote:
>> >a human a product which you can either afford or not, depending on your
>> >position in the capitalist society. Of course this is perfectly in the
>> line of
>> >thinking of a free market capitalist. In his view, humans have always
>> Please. Surely you don't really believe this?
>It's not a question of belief. It might soon be reality.

It already happened. You sell bits and pieces of yourself on the market
all the time, in exchange for money which you can use to buy bits and
pieces of other people.

Every human being has finite value. I don't see how cloning would change
this at all. Every free agent (cloned or otherwise) is fully capable of
modifying their net worth as a human being.


Stephen Hawking is arguably worth more as a human being than Billy Bob

However, if Billy Bob Redneck left his trailer, went to college, and became
an expert on protein design, then I would have to re-evaluate the above
statement, since Billy Bob would have significantly increased his net value
as a human being. Additionally, Billy Bob would likely enjoy the benefits
of his investment in his human worth, since human worth is often, but not
always, tangibly reflected. That is to say, if Billy Bob inherited 10
million dollars, traded in his trailer for a mansion, but still sat in
front of the TV drinking beer all day, his human market value wouldn't have
changed a bit.

-James Rogers