[ExI] mitochondrial DNA repair

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 19:32:04 UTC 2012

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Though I have to wonder if this makes human cloning more
> viable.  If so, then does that perhaps ease the path for
> automated child-raising technologies (more children that
> did not come out of a womb, and thus could be "nobody's"
> from birth)?  And in that case, does that mean a financially
> successful culture can more readily convert its capital
> into population, by simply building more of this capacity,
> without requiring individual members to sponsor each
> child?  (Not that any couple that wants to have and raise
> a child in the traditional way would be prohibited; just that
> there would be this alternative - presumably government
> or charity funded, just like most schools are today.)

### This could be possible, in a Brave-New-World-ish way - basically,
a top-down model of organic subunit replacement in the social
superoganism, versus the bottom-up method we have now. It's hard to
predict which organisation is likely to be more viable. The top down
model could be capable of very fast, targeted changes aimed at
throwing resources on well-understood and relatively short-term
problems, just like a Manhattan Project, or a communist five year plan
during wartime - fast and powerful but very brittle and inefficient
over longer timespans. On the other hand, the bottom up, multiply
redundant approach of individual replicators using genetic
technologies to maximize the fitness of their offspring, or redesigned
clone copies, could be more effective at dealing with emergent issue,
the unknown unknowns that inevitably spring up over longer timespans,
just as the capitalist market excels at long term unplanned but robust
growth and continuous, reliable progress. And of course, hybrid
systems could exist as well.

Time will tell.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list