Re: Who Should Live?

J. R. Molloy (
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:49:58 -0800

Michael S. Lorrey wrote,
>I doubt that a clone of Bill Gates would be as motivated as he, partly
>because of raised expectations.

We can only find out by cloning a human.

>It is far easier to build on what you know works than to start from
>scratch. Evolution has gotten as far as it has because of this. A human
>being posesses legacy DNA from every organism in its line of descent
>since year 1.

Right, and the cryonically preserved may constitute starting from scratch, since experimental models will precede reviving those in suspension. IOW, after several cycles of enhancing, augmenting, and amplifying mobile humans, going back to the cryonically preserved would indeed seem like starting from scratch.

>Yes, I really don't care much about the future as much as I would if I
>knew I would be a part of it. Existing as a historical footnote is not
>my idea of immortality.

You have to die sometime, whether in a hundred years or a hundred billion years. But don't worry, historical footnotes will also disappear eventually. Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules. It doesn't have anything to do with "deathism" because everbody dies no matter what they believe. Trying to change that parallels trying to change the laws of thermodynamics.

Only natural law never dies. By natural law I mean the fundamental principles of existence, laws of physics and chemistry. So to the degree humans incorporate natural law in their lives, they attain immortality.


--J. R.