[extropy-chat] Pro-cloning talking point

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 07:01:05 UTC 2004


Thanks, I think this is excellent. It is a measured argument, you
acknowledge that we don't know things well enough yet to mess with
reproductive cloning, you argue based on common sense morality (murder
is bad), and you try to establish a bridge with Christians (If God
exists, it looks like we were created in order to "play God" - i.e.,
to further God's intent, with the tools God gave us."
I think people are far from stupid and that everyone is able to
understand things if they are explained with common sense and simple
words. If we are persuaded of our own views it is up to us to design
and engineer memetic bridges to the rest of the world.
G.


On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> In a debate on another forum - usually a fairly
> mundane one (neither very luddite nor very
> transhumanist, so far as I can tell) - I made the
> following argument in defense of cloning research, in
> retaliation to religious "we should not play God"
> comments.  I expected to get shouted down, but since I
> posted it, I've been getting little but praise; those
> who were arguing the other side saw the point, and the
> only negative comment was a confusion between the
> morality of doing nothing (or less than the maximum
> possible, like spending time participating in this
> debate instead of doing the research 24/7) vs. the
> morality of actively opposing something.
> 
> So I figure, if I offer it here, maybe it can help
> inform other talking points on this and similar
> issues, both in content and in style.  I'm not sure
> whether this is just ego, or if I truly have stumbled
> across a not widely used but effective meme
> propigation style.
> 
> ---
> 
> My position is the same as most of those posted here,
> but a bit more extreme.
> 
> Theraputic cloning almost definitely will save lives.
> Research into reproductive cloning is likely to, at
> the least, improve our understanding of human natal
> processes, thus resulting in better care for
> non-cloned newborns.  And so forth.  Therefore, those
> who oppose cloning for no other reason than a belief
> that God is against it, have on their hands the blood
> of all those who will suffer and die due to things
> that cloning research - if it happened faster without
> their objections - would have prevented.  In short,
> they are murderers.
> 
> Yes, that's right.  Murderers.  A lesser form,
> perhaps, because they are distanced from the event and
> they almost certainly do not themselves see what their
> actions will reap.  (Those whom I've seen come to
> understand this cause and effect, have almost
> universally repented their errant belief shortly
> thereafter.)  But it is still the same sin as defined
> by their own religious texts.
> 
> If God exists, it looks like we were created in order
> to "play God" - i.e., to further God's intent, with
> the tools God gave us. (Personally, I'm not sure there
> is a divine entity.  I'm just saying, if there is,
> then given what has been revealed to us thus far...)
> 
> That said...at the moment, any attempts at
> reproductive cloning would almost definitely produce
> extreme birth defects, and that's among the few cloned
> embryos that survived long enough to be born.  So
> reproductive cloning is not a good idea right now.
> Once research is done to change that situation,
> though, it becomes just another type of artificial
> fertility treatment, much like in vitro fertilization
> (which it makes used of) and surrogate wombs.  On the
> other hand, the research itself - even research
> explicitly aimed towards reproductive cloning - is not
> a bad thing.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list