Writer's Block: Copy that
Jan. 30th, 2010 12:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasa[Error: unknown template qotd]
I've thought about it, and there's really no good reason to clone whole humans. I mean, why would you ever need to?
Are you trying to replace a loved one? A clone is only a physical copy. They are only genetically identical to the original. It's like having a twin born several years later. Twins have different personalities, preferences, and experiences are clearly not the same people, and neither are clones. Frankly, using a clone to replace a loved one, even a pet, is only going to make you feel worse as the absolute loss of the original becomes all the more obvious.
Are you trying to make a a superior human race by cloning people with the best genes? First off, good luck, Hitler; that sort of social and genetic manipulation is considered highly unethical and is not going to fly in modern society. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, clones are genetically weaker than their originals because they start off with DNA that has already begun to age. Your clones may be superior humans for a while, but they might have trouble reproducing naturally and will likely have shorter lifespans. So, not really so superior, eh?
Conversely, are you considering creating a class of sub-human slaves? Once again, you're going to hit massive ethical roadblocks, and considering we're already turning against enslaving groups of people who look dissimilar to us, how the heck do you think we can justify enslaving people who are exact copies? You'd run into all sorts of Bladerunner-esque difficulties in differentiating the originals from the copies, and as clones are real people (whose genes were just pulled directly from another being instead of the mix created by sex) even the memory-implant thing won't help you out.
Are you doing it just because you can? Here's a piece of wisdom for you I find quite profound: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to. I think it's fascinating that we're reached a level of scientific achievement that cloning humans is a possibility; however, raw science needs to be evaluated for its relevance to society. Do we need clones? We are doing just fine with normal sexual reproduction-- frankly, we already have an overpopulation problem as it is. Barring evolutionary changes that cease sexual reproduction a la Children of Men, we have no need for cloning to assist us. Furthermore, cloning is inferior to sexual reproduction because it smothers the natural diversity borne of sex. We would have less genetic diversity and be more vulnerable as a species to the physical and mental dysfunctions you see in groups with high levels of incest. Also, the possibility of weaker genetics means that, like the visual quality of an old home video, the clones' genes (and ability to reproduce) might start to disintegrate after being copied a few times.
HOWEVER, I am in favor of cloning organs and tissue for medical purposes. That sort of cloning is highly relevant and beneficial for society. If we can simply create a proper organ from scratch (ie: a pool of donated cells, tissues, or a full donated organ) without having to find a donor, check for matches, and cut through all the red tape in a very small amount of time, we could save a lot of people's lives and prevent a lot of misery. Plus, livers and hearts don't reproduce; the individual would go on to reproduce their original genetic material and the copied organ would have no effect on anything.
Speaking of ethically-questionable human-reproducing activities . . .
Have you heard of Roxxxy? (Never fear, a male Rocky is in the works, too).
An interactive sex robot doesn't concern me as much as emotional robots (Don't you watch movies or anime or read comic books? Everybody knows if you give robots emotions, they become embittered and take over the world, duh!), but she does bring up some social and ethical considerations.
Will Roxxxy replace real human sexual interaction? Will this encourage men (and women, with Rocky) to forgo the inconsistencies and drama of a human partner in favor of a consistent partner whose emotions are limited and therefore more predictable, who follows a script with just enough spontaneity to be interesting but not enough that they risk being unable to get some any time they want? (I mean, I doubt Roxxxy ever rolls over and says "Not tonight, sweetie; I've got a headache!"). Will those with poor social skills use Roxxxy as an excuse to languish in their social failings and never make an effort to court and succeed with a real person?
That leap out at me right away, but the more I think about it the less plausible it seems. I mean, people and animals have masturbated-- and often with assistance from tools-- in place of sex for millennia; even when coupled with a sexual capable and willing partner an individual will sometimes choose to self-pleasure with (in spite of Cosmo's balking) no averse effects on the relationship. While Roxxxy's programmed characters complicate things by also providing an emotional component, she's not anywhere near the capacity of a real human yet and, for 99% of the world, would not serve as an acceptable replacement to a human companion. (And for that 1% . . . Well, let's be honest here; they probably would have ended up lonely anyway). And she sure as hell can't reproduce. I don't think she signals the doom of the Real Human Relationship.
And I'm actually quite optimistic about some of the possible applications for Roxxxy. I could see Roxxxy being ideal for, say, monogamous couples who want to introduce menage-a-trois without risking emotional complications with the third party that would threaten the original terms of the relationship.
There are some quite controversial applications Roxxxy could prove relevant for, too, though I'm not sure if society is ready to address them. One of the four scripted character programs is "Frigid Farrah." I don't know in what ways Frigid Farrah manifests her frigidity, but she sounds unwilling: a fantasy for men who enjoy "conquering" a difficult partner in spite of her initial refusal-- despite fact that such attitudes and behavior are considered unhealthy in modern society and arguably lay the foundation for some sexual crimes against women. But as Farrah is a program in a robot, those ethical concerns don't exist, right? So could the next generation of Roxxxy programs cater to other unacceptable fetishes, such as sexual sadism and pedophilia? Could pedophiles purchase a robot that looks and behaves like a prepubescent girl or boy in order to fulfill their sexual needs without harming a real child?-- or would that only backfire and encourage them all the more to seek out the real thing? (And yet if that's inappropriate, why is "Frigid Farrah" okay?).
Actually, to me the most disturbing part of the Roxxxy situation is not in her ethical considerations but how she came to be. The Huffington Post cites:
An engineer, Hines said he was inspired to create the robot after a friend died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That got him thinking about preserving his friend's personality, to give his children a chance to interact with him as they're growing up.
So he wanted to create a replacement father for his friend's children, and he created . . . a sex robot? In all honesty I think the father-replacement thing is way more ethically shady than a sex robot, but non sequitur much?
Edit (2/5/09): So, apparently they've recently added a 5th personality to Roxxxy: Young Yoko (*sigh* she would be Japanese -.-), "oh so young-- barely 18-- and waiting for you to teach her." No reason why you can't pretend she's still 16 or 17, though. I imagine it'd be a stretch to pretend Roxxxy's body belonged to anyone under (a very well-endowed) 15, however . . .
I've thought about it, and there's really no good reason to clone whole humans. I mean, why would you ever need to?
Are you trying to replace a loved one? A clone is only a physical copy. They are only genetically identical to the original. It's like having a twin born several years later. Twins have different personalities, preferences, and experiences are clearly not the same people, and neither are clones. Frankly, using a clone to replace a loved one, even a pet, is only going to make you feel worse as the absolute loss of the original becomes all the more obvious.
Are you trying to make a a superior human race by cloning people with the best genes? First off, good luck, Hitler; that sort of social and genetic manipulation is considered highly unethical and is not going to fly in modern society. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, clones are genetically weaker than their originals because they start off with DNA that has already begun to age. Your clones may be superior humans for a while, but they might have trouble reproducing naturally and will likely have shorter lifespans. So, not really so superior, eh?
Conversely, are you considering creating a class of sub-human slaves? Once again, you're going to hit massive ethical roadblocks, and considering we're already turning against enslaving groups of people who look dissimilar to us, how the heck do you think we can justify enslaving people who are exact copies? You'd run into all sorts of Bladerunner-esque difficulties in differentiating the originals from the copies, and as clones are real people (whose genes were just pulled directly from another being instead of the mix created by sex) even the memory-implant thing won't help you out.
Are you doing it just because you can? Here's a piece of wisdom for you I find quite profound: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to. I think it's fascinating that we're reached a level of scientific achievement that cloning humans is a possibility; however, raw science needs to be evaluated for its relevance to society. Do we need clones? We are doing just fine with normal sexual reproduction-- frankly, we already have an overpopulation problem as it is. Barring evolutionary changes that cease sexual reproduction a la Children of Men, we have no need for cloning to assist us. Furthermore, cloning is inferior to sexual reproduction because it smothers the natural diversity borne of sex. We would have less genetic diversity and be more vulnerable as a species to the physical and mental dysfunctions you see in groups with high levels of incest. Also, the possibility of weaker genetics means that, like the visual quality of an old home video, the clones' genes (and ability to reproduce) might start to disintegrate after being copied a few times.
HOWEVER, I am in favor of cloning organs and tissue for medical purposes. That sort of cloning is highly relevant and beneficial for society. If we can simply create a proper organ from scratch (ie: a pool of donated cells, tissues, or a full donated organ) without having to find a donor, check for matches, and cut through all the red tape in a very small amount of time, we could save a lot of people's lives and prevent a lot of misery. Plus, livers and hearts don't reproduce; the individual would go on to reproduce their original genetic material and the copied organ would have no effect on anything.
Speaking of ethically-questionable human-reproducing activities . . .
Have you heard of Roxxxy? (Never fear, a male Rocky is in the works, too).
An interactive sex robot doesn't concern me as much as emotional robots (Don't you watch movies or anime or read comic books? Everybody knows if you give robots emotions, they become embittered and take over the world, duh!), but she does bring up some social and ethical considerations.
Will Roxxxy replace real human sexual interaction? Will this encourage men (and women, with Rocky) to forgo the inconsistencies and drama of a human partner in favor of a consistent partner whose emotions are limited and therefore more predictable, who follows a script with just enough spontaneity to be interesting but not enough that they risk being unable to get some any time they want? (I mean, I doubt Roxxxy ever rolls over and says "Not tonight, sweetie; I've got a headache!"). Will those with poor social skills use Roxxxy as an excuse to languish in their social failings and never make an effort to court and succeed with a real person?
That leap out at me right away, but the more I think about it the less plausible it seems. I mean, people and animals have masturbated-- and often with assistance from tools-- in place of sex for millennia; even when coupled with a sexual capable and willing partner an individual will sometimes choose to self-pleasure with (in spite of Cosmo's balking) no averse effects on the relationship. While Roxxxy's programmed characters complicate things by also providing an emotional component, she's not anywhere near the capacity of a real human yet and, for 99% of the world, would not serve as an acceptable replacement to a human companion. (And for that 1% . . . Well, let's be honest here; they probably would have ended up lonely anyway). And she sure as hell can't reproduce. I don't think she signals the doom of the Real Human Relationship.
And I'm actually quite optimistic about some of the possible applications for Roxxxy. I could see Roxxxy being ideal for, say, monogamous couples who want to introduce menage-a-trois without risking emotional complications with the third party that would threaten the original terms of the relationship.
There are some quite controversial applications Roxxxy could prove relevant for, too, though I'm not sure if society is ready to address them. One of the four scripted character programs is "Frigid Farrah." I don't know in what ways Frigid Farrah manifests her frigidity, but she sounds unwilling: a fantasy for men who enjoy "conquering" a difficult partner in spite of her initial refusal-- despite fact that such attitudes and behavior are considered unhealthy in modern society and arguably lay the foundation for some sexual crimes against women. But as Farrah is a program in a robot, those ethical concerns don't exist, right? So could the next generation of Roxxxy programs cater to other unacceptable fetishes, such as sexual sadism and pedophilia? Could pedophiles purchase a robot that looks and behaves like a prepubescent girl or boy in order to fulfill their sexual needs without harming a real child?-- or would that only backfire and encourage them all the more to seek out the real thing? (And yet if that's inappropriate, why is "Frigid Farrah" okay?).
Actually, to me the most disturbing part of the Roxxxy situation is not in her ethical considerations but how she came to be. The Huffington Post cites:
An engineer, Hines said he was inspired to create the robot after a friend died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That got him thinking about preserving his friend's personality, to give his children a chance to interact with him as they're growing up.
So he wanted to create a replacement father for his friend's children, and he created . . . a sex robot? In all honesty I think the father-replacement thing is way more ethically shady than a sex robot, but non sequitur much?
Edit (2/5/09): So, apparently they've recently added a 5th personality to Roxxxy: Young Yoko (*sigh* she would be Japanese -.-), "oh so young-- barely 18-- and waiting for you to teach her." No reason why you can't pretend she's still 16 or 17, though. I imagine it'd be a stretch to pretend Roxxxy's body belonged to anyone under (a very well-endowed) 15, however . . .
