Human Cloning: Sorting Fact from Fiction

[Monique]

Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Gattica portrays every person as identical, but, I don't advocate making everyone 100% identical. We still need some diversity in personality to make society functional.

Regarding emotions, I personally don't value sentimentality, but rather pragmatism and stoicism. That is just my idiosyncratic tendency. Others will differ.

The movie's name is GATACA (after the four bases which make up our genome: CATG).

The movie did not portray every person as being identical, not at all.

 

[FZ+]

You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.

But that's besides the point. There are many better ways.

So, you believe in the creed of transhumanism, right? Transhumanism is about human eventually going above the current, with us guiding the evolution of our species. Ok. I have no problems with that.

But cloning obviously runs contrary to that purpose. Cloning isn't going to improve humanity. It is simply going to replicate our flaws.

Suppose we find that whatever made Newton is x percent genetic, and let go of the lack of evidence for a moment, and ignore any moral objections. So what? In his later life, Newton was a jerk. He wasted his life on alchemy, and was an ass to everyone he met. Do we want a clone of him? Most schoolkids can probably come up with the insights he took, without the additional madness. Mozart? Mozart was driven by a private passion. If that passion was genetic, then we'll get bored of his single passion. Cloning seems only to allow us to live in the past.

If we are to use genetics properly with a transhumanist goal, we shouldn't be going with the wastefulness of cloning, or the scattershot approach of eugenics. We should be using our new knowledge of the human genome to advance our progressive generations.

dodger:

Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesn't mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

I think you failed to recognise ironic rhetoric.

Carlos:

Gatica was not a rational movie, the author was a Marxist and was biased in the portrayal of futurists. In fact, I have ample evidence that Hollywood is under Marxist control, or in other words, CEOs who have identical political/cultural beliefs, that of Marxism. No diversity of ideas in Hollywood. Actually, I think a better portrayal of what I personally like is the Falcon species Spok from Star Trek belonged to.

That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.

No, Gattaca is in no way marxist. If anything, it is anti-marxist (specifically anti the predestination implication of genetic testing), but is overall pretty even handed. Star Trek, on the other hand is a marxist vision. (no currency ring a bell?) And Spock came from the Vulcans.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by dodger
Points a, b are irreleavent. c is a BAD point (as opposed to a good point), d doesn't mean anything andd e applies only now so is irrelavent.

Yes we should play with fire.

You probably failed your ethics class? You probably think the development of the atomic bomb was a good thing for humanity? You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?

And why do you think those points I mentioned were pro-cloning? Cloning reduces genetic variability and thus makes us more prone to diseases and also leads to a higher frequency of inbreeding. How can that be a bad argument against cloning?

 

[Ontoplankton]

Originally posted by Monique
You probably think Hitler had a good agenda?

Godwin's Law, dodger wins.

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

Originally posted by FZ+
That sounds like an ad hominem attack, to me.

You are right, I was guilty of ad hominem. I will try not to do it again. Let me know if I do.

Carlos Hernandez