[ExI] Things I have (sort of) changed my mind on (3): Tabloid transhumanism
atymes at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 00:11:19 UTC 2018
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:01 PM William Flynn Wallace
<foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> One possibility: get general acceptance of cloning humans, so that you
>> can manufacture babies (e.g., for would-be parents biologically unable
>> to conceive). There will be less resistance to editing their genes -
>> and then editing natural-born babies can be promoted as just being
>> fair, giving them the same advantages.
> They are already cloning family pets. Why not people? "That's one small step for a dog, one giant leap for mankind."
I meant babies, as in new people w/no parents or relatives to object
to the genetic modification of, not necessarily clones traceable to
specific ancestry. (Though start with cloned offspring, perhaps.)
> I can see replacing people who died. But would you need permission to clone a living person? Laws of inheritance would go crazy.
If that were to happen today, legally the clone would be the former
person's descendant, not the same individual. Laws of inheritance
would treat the clone as just another offspring. The clone doesn't
have the source person's knowledge or memories, and is thus no more a
replacement than any ordinary son or daughter is a replacement.
And of course you'd need the living person's permission. Just like
you (legally and morally, if not biologically) need it for the natural
> Prediction (100% accuracy) - the government will get into this and mess it up badly.
But of course. One trick is to set up the situation so that the way
they mess it up doesn't derail (and ideally reinforces) the objective.
More information about the extropy-chat