Text 354, 322 rader
Skriven 2004-10-13 07:37:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Interview with Mayr
===============================




Michael Ragland <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote - or quoted me as saying: 
Actually, in the past there have been specialized roles for some humans
such as young males, who were made into eunuchs. However, those
specialized roles no longer exist today. So I'm wondering what Tim is
thinking when he refers to clones fulfilling specialized roles. 

TT:
Reproductives, warriors, clerks, waiters, porters, designers, sumo
wrestlers, architects, engineers - that sort of thing. 

MR:
Reproductives? I thought it was your contention clones would be sterile.
Even if you cloned an Arnold Schwartzenegger I don't think you would
necessarily get a body builder and a famous movie star and the Governor
of California. What if a clone of Arnold was brought up in a third world
ghetto rather than Austria. Dramatic environmental differences or even
moderate environmental differences interacting with the same genes of a
Schwartzenegger clone would produce a somewhat different individual who
may choose an entirely different profession(s). Have you ever seen the
movie "The Boys from Brazil"? It is a stupid movie but what is
interesting is that several clones of Hitler have been produced and an
effort to replicate his environmental background. The problem with this
is that it doesn't take into account historical circumstances which made
Hitler possible. Interestingly, in the movie some of the Hitler clones
did turn out evil but a few didn't.

TT:
Most humans play highly specialised roles today - and the "jack of all
trades" is basically dead - since being good at many things most likely
means you are not the best at any of them - and if you are not the best
at *something*, the winner-take-all nature of the global economy will is
unlikely to treat you kindly. 

MR:
In general I agree with you. There are exceptions though. I'm 38 and
basically haven't worked my whole life except for a handful of menial
jobs, the longest which lasted a year. I collect SSDI which is Social
Security Disability Income. I live in specialized apartment complex for
people with psychiatric disabilities. I've forfeited several things by
such an arrangement. The most obvious are attracting a female, forming a
family and having a professional career. I think I would have wanted
those things but it just didn't turn out that way. Technically, I'm not
on welfare but in your view I'm one of those screwed up people who are
kept from falling off life's ladder and have wasted the education spent
on them by the government.

MR:
If he is operating on the 
premise the clone will be genetically identical to the donor this
doesn't take into account different environmental factors interacting
with the clone's genes result in varying phenotypes and that some
studies have been done which show identical twins are not phenotypically
identical. 

TT:
Similarly no two Ford cars are identical. That doesn't stop ford
mass-producing them to an identical design, though. 

MR:
I reject the analogy of a mass produced Ford car to a human being.
Apparently the identical design you refer to is the cloning method but
there will be individual differences between clones. You could say the
same for human sexual reproduction being an "identical design" but
producing individual differences.

MR:
Assuming a cloned human could not reproduce this itself would raise
ethical concerns since many would consider reproduction a natural right
unless a person was biologically unable to reproduce e.g. born with a
condition, disease or by choice such as sterilization. 

TT:
Ethical concerns are hardly going to prevent the production of sterile
worker clones in the long term. 

MR:
These are some pretty big ethical concerns. Cloning may be done for
those who are infertile and that is one ethical issue but mass producing
a slave class of sterile worker clones is ethically problematical. You
assume such sterile worker clones will voluntarily do tasks for
reproductives when in all probability many sterile worker clones would
see this as a form of oppression. Furthermore, this assumes conditioning
and training such sterile worker clones at a young age to perform the
tasks meted out to them by reproductives. I believe some sterile worker
clones would rebel against such a system. We are not insects Mr. Tyler.
The arrangement in ants between reproductives and sterile workers which
is natural would not be nearly as biologically adaptive or efficient in
humans.

TT:
Not everyone shares the ethical concerns you speak of - and those that
don't see anything wrong with creating sterile human workers that don't
get distracted from their work by reproductive issues are bound to
produce them eventually. 

MR:
Well that's just it. Such sterile human clone workers that didn't get
distracted from their work by reproductive issues may be at great risk
of being exploited by reproductives.

TT:
IMO, humanity is destined to form composite social organsms - and it's
fundamental to that that its components come to share most of their
genes with one another - otherwise the very organs of the resulting
composite organisms will be prone to genetic conflict of interests - and
are likely to wind up fighting with one another. 

MR:
I think in the past slavery formed composite social organisms and
components shared most of their genes with each other. There was
certainly a conflict of interests as a result but not a genetic conflict
of interests. Nevertheless, the issue of slavery led partially to
fighting with one another.

MR:
Tim writes, "employers can read reviews of the model by other customers
and know what they are getting, and R&D costs are minimised." What are
they getting? Human clones would not be like Japanese cattle which are
kept in a box and fattened up and our prized choice meat. So what are
employers getting? 

TT:
Like Japanese cattle - in what respect? 

MR:
The whole process you write of is one of mass production and
dehumanization. I had read that Japanese beef was considered the best in
the world at one time and they kept the cattle confined in very small
quarters. So I was using it as an analogy to mass production and
dehumanization.

MR:
First of all, your approach to human 
cloning is that of a cookie cutter assembly line where every different
type of human clone is identical to the particular type. I don't think
that reflects reality. 

TT:
It may not do. Some variation may be needed to combat diseases. One of
the perils of modern monocultures is susceptability to disesase - and so
future monocultures may have some variation deliberately built into
them. 
MR:
In reference to disease susceptibility you seem to think variation may
be necessary. However, in your concept of sterile worker clone humans
performing specialized tasks for reproductives this definitely resembles
a cookie cutter assembly line where every different type of human clone
is identical to the particular type.

MR:
Secondly, even if your outlandish scenario was possible it takes away
the autonomy of the individual. 

TT:
There are still individuals. It's just that they are not at the level of
individual humans. A human would be analogous to a somatic cell in such
a creature. 

MR:
Please explain. Why aren't sterile clones at the level of individual
humans? Simply because they can't reproduce? Is that your criteria for
what an individual human is?

MR:
Employers would look through magazines or on the internet and look at a
particular cloned human model and read reviews and decide it it filled
the requirements of the employer. This isn't much different from
Africans arriving in the American South and their musculature, hide,
teeth, etc. being examined and depending on their estimated value being
sold to the highest bidder. 

TT:
It would be like slavery. The reproductives would have near complete
control over the workers. However the workers would perform their tasks
willingly. Their only hope for immortality would be helping the
reproductives. 

MR:
I don't think all workers would perform their tasks willingly. Your
statement, "Their only hope for immortality would be helping the
reproductives reminds me of kin selection and insects again. We're not
the same. First of all, assuming human cloning can be done in the future
this is not a product of Darwinian evolution but an application of
biotechnology. Biotechnology, like any technology, can be misused.

MR:
Tim also has other ideas of genetically engineered humans fulfilling
specialized roles. He writes, "Creatures with large muscles, large
brains, and oversize sexual organs will be created to play particular
roles. Differences between individuals may thus become magnified. Notice
how he refers to these genetically engineered human organisms as
"Creatures". 

TT:
It's what they would be. I'm a creature. You're a creature. This whole
planet is full of us critters. 

MR:
Yes, that is true but I get the impression your use of "creature" in
this context denotes something which isn't fully human. In the case of
sterile clones you've already admitted that.

MR:
There is no question genetic engineering will ultimately magnify
differences between individuals. But I think it would be premature to
say what particular roles they will play as if this could be precisely
determined apriori. 

TT:
I'm afraid I take it for granted that some of the future niches will
include room for: 
* large muscles; 
* large brains; 
* large genitals; 
It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to be able to predict that. 

MR:
The only possible one I agree with you on is large muscles. In order to
have larger brains would likely require larger skulls and the birth
canal of a woman can only accomodate so big a head.The only way I see
really large brains is not merely through genetic engineering but in the
environment of an artificial womb. What is your reasoning behind large
genitals?

MR:
There is bound to be trial and error process and there will be failures
as well as successes. 

TT:
Sure. 

MR:
But the successful genetically engineered human organisms will play
their own particular roles and not necessarily the particular roles
idiot scientists and society have planned for them. 

TT:
Sure - but you can bet there will be: 
* large muscles; 
* large brains; 
* large genitals; 
That was all I claimed - as I recall. 

MR:
I already addressed that. Obviously there is alot more to the
possibilities of genetic engineering.

MR:
I must admit, however, genetically engineering humans to have oversized
sex organs may fulfill the requirements of society and idiot scientists.
Tim writes, "If that happens, "racial" discrimination may become more
common. The only way I see this occurring would be if certain ethnic
groups could not avail themselves of future genetic engineering
applications or chose not to. 

TT:
Specialisation will magnify differences between individuals - and that
is quite likely to have some negative effects - especially if our
primitive brains are still playing catch-up with all the changes. 
of genetic engineering. > 

MR:
I think genetic engineering of humans will happen very gradually and
there will be a magnifigation of differences but it will not be
immediate.

MR:
Finally, Tim muses, "E.g. no longer would the middle-aged prostitute be
able to find work as a secretary - since the competition will all have
twelve fingers and built-in interfaces to the office equipment." Why
twelve fingers? 

TT:
Twelve fingers is a classic example of genetic manipulation. It was used
in the film Gattaca - for example. 

MR:
Okay.

MR:
This is suppose to make it faster? 

TT:
That was the idea in the movie - see Nyman's "Impromptu For 12 Fingers"
from that film. 

MR:
What if the middle-aged prostitute with ten fingers can type better and
faster than some of those with twelve fingers? 

TT:
Then in my example that's not very likely - since the prostitute's
fingers are covered with VibroTouch Velvet(TM) - and they keep slipping
off the keys. 

MR:
Once a prostitute always a prostitute, huh?

MR:
Why should those with twelve fingers just have built-in interfaces to
the office equipment? Why not those with ten fingers? 

TT:
For the same reason that Ford cars don't ship with gun turrets - and
tanks don't have straps in the rear for attaching baby harnesses. 

MR:
I'm happy with ten fingers. 
__________ 
  |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/13/04 7:37:06 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)