Text 362, 365 rader
Skriven 2004-10-13 13:24:00 av Tim Tyler (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Interview with Mayr
===============================


Michael Ragland <ragland66@webtv.net> wrote or quoted:
> 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.

They would be.

The term "reproductives" would correspond to the "factory" that 
churned out the clones.

> 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).

That kind of scenario would most likely defeat the purpose of cloning
the individual in the first place.

If you were building soldiers, you would send them all to army camp - and 
not let some study ballet, while others compose sonatas.

> Have you ever seen the movie "The Boys from Brazil"?

Fraid not.

> 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.

Inevitably - just as there are between any two Ford cars.

> You could say the same for human sexual reproduction being an 
> "identical design" but producing individual differences.

Clones will be a lot like identical twins - who resemble each
other more strongly than sexually reproduced individuals tend to do.

> 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. 

Reproduction is not a "natural right" - as somatic cells and ants should
clearly demonstrate.

Nature simply does not necessarily make all somatically 
distinct individuals sexually potent.

> 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.

If such clones ever come to exist, they probably won't be favoured by 
selection.

Selection makes sterile individuals altruistic towards their reproductive
kin pretty quickly.

> Furthermore, this assumes conditioning and training such sterile worker 
> clones at a young age to perform the tasks meted out to them by 
> reproductives.

That's likely, yes.
 
> I believe some sterile worker clones would rebel against such a system.

Just as some somatic cells dream of starting their own germ lines.
These cells are called "cancer cells".

> 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.

IMO, we are in a *much* better position to become a hive organism
than the ants ever were.  Hives depend critically on communication 
pathways for their viability.

Ants are quite challenged in this department - and have to rely on smell 
to coordinate their activities.  By contrast, humans look poised to 
conquor the communications barrier, and are doing a great job of bringing 
down the walls that divide physically separated organisms from each other.

We have all kinds of other advantages over the ants as well.  We need
specialisation more than they ever did.  There are only a few somatic
categories of ants - but there will most likely be a much larger
number of types of genetically-distinct humans - each with their own
quota of supplemental chromosomes - and they will be subdivided into
an astronomical number of different roles (as they are today).

We also have better tools than the ants had to transform ourselves with.

> 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.

How can reproductives exploit workers?  That would be like saying
that your germ line cells exploit the rest of your body.  Workers
would not be exploited.  Instead they would willingly sacrifice
themselves - if the need should arise.

> 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.

The conflict between slaves and their masters historically was 
fundamentally genetic.  If the slave genes could only reproduce
if the master reproduced, they would have had no desire to escape,
and would have done thier master's bidding willingly.

> 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.

The idea of the process is to build super-human colonial organisms.

Those are not "dehumanised" - they are "super-humanised" - and will
be far more powerful and competent than individuals humans could
ever hope to be alone.

> 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.

Engineered human clones may not all be genetically identical.  It would
be easier to build them that way - but disease resistance concerns may
force some variation on them.

There are some other factors that will favour some variability as well -
slightly different strains may be made for differing applications.

> 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? [...]

That's not what I said - I said that there were still individuals - but
that they were not at the level of individual humans.  Instead the
new individual would be some sort of reproductive organism - most
likely resembling a clone factory.  That would be where the
organisms's genes resided (in computers) and where plans to
create new factories would be laid.  It would be the equivalent
of the ant queen.

> 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. [...]

If they didn't, selection would soon take care of them.

Soon we would not see their type around any more.

> Your statement, "Their only hope for immortality would be helping
> the reproductives reminds me of kin selection and insects again.

As it should ;-)

> We're not the same. [...]

Not at the moment.  In the future, most of the surviving humans will
make a much better example of a clonial hive organism than the ants
ever did.

> 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.

Our descendants will probably still qualify as human - if the defining
characteristic of humanity is being able to inter-breed with us.

They will be able to interbreed with practically anything, though -
by careful genetic recombination.

Whether our descendants qualify as being human seems like a rather 
pointless word game about the definition of the term "human" to me.

> 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.

You neglect artificial wombs?  Cesarean section?

The limit on the size of the human head imposed by the female's pelvis
is toast ;-)

> 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?

See the following links (warning: not for those under 18!):

  http://free-penis-enlargement-links.thundersplace.com/
  http://pefaq.thundersplace.com/
  http://pearchive.thundersplace.com/
  http://www.peforum.net/

Make no mistake, large genitals are in some demand - and consequently the 
future will see bigger genitals than have ever been seen in the past.

> 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.

Of course.  I never suggested those were *all* the future would produce!

> 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?

That's one of the hazzards of specialisation: if you are born to
fill one role, filling other roles may be challenging.

However, the advantages of specialisation are far too great to
neglect - and inevatibly some of the variation in roles that is
today catered for by phenotypic polymorphisms will find its
way into the genome.
-- 
__________
 |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 1:24:11 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)