|
Ayten, I join you in praising Judith's post -
however it was more than what I can easily read (and absorb?). I am thrown
off when RR draws examples (evidences?) from chapters of biology, physics (and
math, like 'Hamiltonian')
for statements about (wholistic)
complexity, which indeed are abstracted reductionist models of the latter. Then
I have to stop, re-read, and realize that RR addressed the reader, who comes
from reductionst scientific thinking. I am not.
I got 2 ideas:
1./ a clone is chimeric: the difference between
'more or less' is quantitative, not reaching into the quale.
I could not decipher RR's opinion about the
psyche of a (successful?) clone, IMO the genetic stuff it continues is
pertnent only to body(function) building.
Your _expression_
>"...neurological (including all brain
functions), passional, >intuitional, spiritual;...<
gave me the idea #2:
( I don't recall a concerning thought from
RR - (Judith?) - )
namely that cloning may provide a "blank"
mindset.
Works on the body. Genetic
bio-stuff.
In my decade-long discussions about the memes (not in the original Dawkins
version and not as later opponents distorted it) - it is IMO a "routine" of one's thinking, style,
(dis)likes, beliefs, emotions, the mindset - and
it develops
on the gentically provided base during development - maybe starting in the womb, enriched
in early learning about the world (environment), both physical and social, as
pretty flexible at this age, although later on it can be altered by
learning-experience (whatever we mean by that).
My usual example (and this will be familiar to
you) are the
Yanitchars, the Janissaries, the Flowers of the Garden of Begtas, the elite
force of the Ottoman Sultans. They were collected from a wide series of occupied
countries as babies, from an even wider (genetic/worldview) sortiment
of descent, and brought up in collective
'vocational' muslim education into uniform,
reliable killing machines.
I called them secondary clones before cloning
became a realistc (household) concept.
As I wrote some time ago to another
list: we did not read the report of a sheep-psychologist who examined Dolly
in the "sheepish psych science" (in sheepese) whether she was
a psychologically 'normal'
sheep. I don't trust the human
examinations and conclusions in sheepish
matters.
Your idea about the successful cloning
which:
>"...could produce uniform individuals to
gradually replace >the diversity at large,..."<
postulates the discontinuation of the bisexual
process. It
may well be that the clones will be more
successful(?)
but this perspective looks to me as utterly
boring.
Not only do I find the conventional techniques
entertaining,
I also realize that Nature (the biosphere?) goes
for diversity.
We are very very far from "the age of the
clone", don't even know (our other ongoing thread) whether besides unknown
psych, which I mentioned, will a clone have an adequate immune system? A repair
mechanism? does it respond to
medication? Heal wounds?
I am not surprised that RR did not speak
much about cones (it would have been
premature before their emerging).
Cheers
John M
|