Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:

> What your proposing would ultimately have to go beyond 
> private enterprise and involve governmental sanction and 
> regulation and also considerable funds, not to mention 
> questions of feasibility and practicality and severe 
> ethical questions. Not to mention the resistance of large 
> segments of the public, particularly the religious 
> community. In a democracy I don't think the idea would 
> float. In a dictatorial society, assuming the means and 
> technology were available, a nut like Hitler might try it.

If luddides gain power we might see a
"war on genetic engineering".

There are already signs of this :-(

Government attempts to supress useful technology are
unlikely to work very well in the long term.

For example, the human cloners simply migrated off to other 
countries where their work was not illegal.

If one society doesn't want to explore the available 
technological avenues, other ones will step forwards.

> I understand your rationale but I believe a person should 
> be free to choose their own vocation. [...]

A sentiment which ants would reject out of hand.

> > 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.
>
> It may not be a "natural right" but sexual reproduction is
> the form of reproduction for humans.

It's the most common one - but is no longer the only one ;-)

> To my knowledge kin selection has not been scientifically
> empirically validated beyond refutation in human populations.

I'll have to save your kin-selection doubts for another day.

[training sterile worker clones at a young age to
 perform the tasks meted out to them by reproductives]
 
> I don't think such a plan would fly in a democracy and there
> would be signifigant public opposition to it, especially from
> religions. [...]

They are the ones who most loudly advocate training individuals
for particular roles from birth:

"Give Me the Child Until He Is Seven and I Will Show You the Man". 

;-)

> There just may be enough eventual opposition by such sterile 
> worker clones to do away with the "clone factories". Just as 
> in the past eventually the practice of turning young males 
> into eunuchs and Africans into slaves were done away with.

That's not what I forsee.  In the medium term, I predict a
mixture of individual sexual humans and distributed clonal
organisms (who themselves reproduce sexually).  Eventually,
I reckon *most* things that resemble somatic humans will
be sterile clones - as a result of natural selection
favouring hive-like organisms.

> > 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.
> 
> It's pretty obvious to me your opinion of people is pretty
> low..on par with ants and termites. [...]

Not one of your more constructive comments :-(

> We already are essentially a colonial organism. I don't see 
> modeling human society on insects and kin selection as 
> viable. I do possibly see the need in the future for sterile 
> human worker clones but this isn't based on kin selection. 
> In fact, I see a time in our evolutionary future where no 
> descendants of humans sexually reproduce. [...]

I don't.  The future will be powerfully and permanently sexual.

> As I mentioned I think eventually our descendants won't 
> sexually reproduce...interbreed with anything. Genetic 
> recombination and the creation of "human life" will will 
> take place in the laboratory and artificial wombs.

You sound like you have an odd definition of sex.

Indeed - most future soma will typically be created in 
something more closely resembling a factory than anything 
else... but that doesn't mean it will not be sexual.

> > 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.
>
> Yes, there is a demand for it but I'm not sure genetic
> engineering will be helpful.

Sure it will ;-)

> See, if the man's penis is too big it hurts the 
> woman's vagina and if it is real big make her
> have a bowel movement. [...]

It won't /just/ be men with bigger genitals ;-)

If natural selection slacks off a bit, inevitably,
sexual selection has more room in which to work -
and sexual selection is good at making things bigger.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/16/04 9:48:48 PM