TT:
I forsee at least two avenues for clones establishing themselves. 

One is the cloned celebrity. Celebrities are naturally in demand - it
only makes sense for there to be more of them to go around. Celebrities
will be cloned by the celebrities themselves, to reduce some of the
risks associated with them dying - and losing the franchise associated
with their identity. Celebrities are also likely to be cloned with or
without their permission - by individuals who love them and want to form
closer associatons with them. 

LK:
But they are in demand precisely because they are rare. We are now
changing the topic into market economics (which in fact might not be off
the track). 

TT:
The other is cloned individuals to play specialised roles. At least some
cultures will have no qualms about producing humans with genetic
specialisiations to fill particular roles in society. Some of the
individuals will most likely be sterile clones. Cloning will be
basically done for the same reason that Ford cars are mass-produced in
identifiable models - the behaviour of the results is known through
testing, you don't have to offer technical support for multiple models,
employers can read reviews of the model by other customers and know what
they are getting, and R&D costs are minimised. 
-- 
So I supose the road to hell really is paved with good intentions 

Best regards,
Lennart Kiil


In Tim's case the road to hell is paved with "tiny intentions". I
actually printed out some posts by Mr. Tyler and showed them to a friend
who referred to him as "tiny Tim" and wondered how many others like him
were on the internet. In this particular case, Tim does treat human
beings (or at least certain hypothetical classes of them) as pure
commercial commodities which fulfill "specialized roles". As he states,
"Cloning will be basically done for the same reason that Ford cars are
mass-produced in identifiable models - the behaviour of the results is
known through testing, you don't have to offer technical support for
multiple models, employers can read reviews of the model by other
customers and know what they are getting, and R&D costs are minimised." 

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. 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. 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.   

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

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". 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.
There is bound to be trial and error process and there will be failures
as well as successes. 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. 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. To be sure, there will be some across all
ethnic and class lines who will not want their progeny to be genetically
engineered or themselves i.e. gene therapy. And since the science and
technology of genetic engineering is mostly concentrated in the U.S.,
Western Europe, Japan and a few other countries one can expect there
will be a delay of this science and technology being implemented in the
developing world e.g. much as industrialization has come late to much of
the developing world.
Does this mean racial discrimination may become more common? Possibly.
As long as aggression hasn't been genetically modified through genetic
engineering and implemented on a wide scale (much as the smallpox
vaccine was) that is a possibility. But the question is who will be
"racially" discriminated against? India and China have the most people
in the world and countries like Pakistan and Nigeria are tremendously
growing. The fertility rates of Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Japan
are also low. North America has a sizeable population but the day is
soon approaching when "European Americans" will be a minority. Only a
massive genocide of European Americans of other ethnic groups could stop
this. I don't think racial discrimination is contingent upon any
advances in genetic engineering. I don't think it would increase it more
or in the short term lessen it. In short, I think it is a red herring
and if there is to be growing balkanization and genocides in the world
it won't be because of genetic engineering.
 
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? This is suppose to make it faster? What if the
middle-aged prostitute with ten fingers can type better and faster than
some of those with twelve fingers? Why should those with twelve fingers
just have built-in interfaces to the office equipment? Why not those
with ten fingers? 

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
 Stephen Hawking
---
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 10/11/04 12:10:43 PM