Monday, December 03, 2007
I've been thinking about what was covered in class regarding the issue of cloning. We do have clones living amongst us, albeit natural clones. I'm talking about people of multiple births, like identical twins and triplets. What are your attitudes towards them? Do you see them as individuals, or perhaps they are linked in some mysterious, mystical way?
There is a fascination for all kinds of twin stories. Like twins who are so alike it is uncanny. I'm thinking about stories of twins who were separated at birth and reunited some decades later, and when they compared their lives, the similarities in their lives, names, jobs, interests... etc boggles the mind. Also, stories of twins who are completely different, with one good and one bad, sort of like two halves of a whole. I think there are parallels with what people find fascinating about twins, the myths and the stereotypes; with that which people feel uneasy, if not horrifying about clones. What do you think?
I can understand the uneasiness the idea of creating life and creating humanity; I see it as being similar to some extent what we covered in class about Mitchell and his point about the creation of an image. But it is difficult for me to understand what the big deal is with clones and individuality. Then again, I'm a twin. The individuality of clones is an idea I accept instinctively. It's another thought experiment that disturbs me more, that shakes my concept of individuality.... you know the one where supposing matter can be converted to energy and transmitted, and with such a transportation technology, the object is destroyed at one end and recreated at the other end; is that recreation a copy or the original? And supposing that machine breaks down and the object is recreated at one end but not destroyed at the original end, is the end copy still the original? If it is a person that was transported, and both people are identical to the point when they have same memories, which is the original?
Re clones, I will say one thing more - judging from the comments I have heard over the years when people first realise I am a twin, I am not hopeful that if clones should ever become a reality, they would be seen as anything but second-class humans, to serve the needs and wants of the original people whose DNA these clones were created from. I can't tell you how often I've heard this, when people first realise I'm a twin, "You are a twin?! I wish I had a twin; I'd make him/her do all my homework". Even from university students, whom if you ask me, should be old enough to know better. As though if you had a twin, your twin would "only" be a genetic copy and you are somehow the greater being.
There is a fascination for all kinds of twin stories. Like twins who are so alike it is uncanny. I'm thinking about stories of twins who were separated at birth and reunited some decades later, and when they compared their lives, the similarities in their lives, names, jobs, interests... etc boggles the mind. Also, stories of twins who are completely different, with one good and one bad, sort of like two halves of a whole. I think there are parallels with what people find fascinating about twins, the myths and the stereotypes; with that which people feel uneasy, if not horrifying about clones. What do you think?
I can understand the uneasiness the idea of creating life and creating humanity; I see it as being similar to some extent what we covered in class about Mitchell and his point about the creation of an image. But it is difficult for me to understand what the big deal is with clones and individuality. Then again, I'm a twin. The individuality of clones is an idea I accept instinctively. It's another thought experiment that disturbs me more, that shakes my concept of individuality.... you know the one where supposing matter can be converted to energy and transmitted, and with such a transportation technology, the object is destroyed at one end and recreated at the other end; is that recreation a copy or the original? And supposing that machine breaks down and the object is recreated at one end but not destroyed at the original end, is the end copy still the original? If it is a person that was transported, and both people are identical to the point when they have same memories, which is the original?
Re clones, I will say one thing more - judging from the comments I have heard over the years when people first realise I am a twin, I am not hopeful that if clones should ever become a reality, they would be seen as anything but second-class humans, to serve the needs and wants of the original people whose DNA these clones were created from. I can't tell you how often I've heard this, when people first realise I'm a twin, "You are a twin?! I wish I had a twin; I'd make him/her do all my homework". Even from university students, whom if you ask me, should be old enough to know better. As though if you had a twin, your twin would "only" be a genetic copy and you are somehow the greater being.
# posted by metwin1 @ 9:48 PM 
