Re: To Live Forever -- Cloning and the Hero

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : I would say that the greatest difference between the potential ability of modern science to clone humans, and Vance's concept in "To Live Forever" is that cloning on its own does not offer a prolongation of life to the individual (except in the sense that spare-parts might enable an otherwise fatal illness to be overcome). A central element in the book is that the Amaranth has the ability to transfer his or her memories, personality and indeed conciousness to a clone. Without this ability the mere existence of a clone would not offer immortality as such. A clone would be merely like having a child except that instead of having half of the genetic make up of a parent it would have the whole. : : : **************************************************************************************************************************************************** : : : I think you miss the point about To Live Forever, Martin. : : : I think Vance was basically saying identical cloning was impossible and the whole culture in the book was one big lie. The Jacynth Martin which Waylock killed and the one that sort Vengence were 2 different beings because they did not share identical memories. : : : Also If you were cloned which body is you ? They cannot be identical as they fill different places in space and therefore instantly have different perspectives. : : : To Live Forever is a suberp thought provoking book with a great yarn. I just love Vance. : : Clifford - I must disagree with you about To Live Forever.I think Martin has the right idea. First let me say that I read the book in the early 60's when I was in my teens so hope I don't embarrass myself with what I remember from 30+ years ago. As I recall, the clones were kept suspended (and hidden so your enemies would'd find and kill them). Once a year you would download your memories into the clone so that if your "body" died during the year you would lose at most one years worth of memories. I don't think there was ever any doubt that even if the clone started off with the same memories that the day to day experience would be different and so a year later the clone would not be identical to the original. I think the general public today has the idea that a clone will have all the memories of the original person whereas if a clone can be made today I think it will have the genetic makeup of the original but not the original's memories. Although I do not recall the names of the authors I have read stories where people have "brain dead" or maybe monkey brain clones that they use for organ transplants. This presents an interesting problem. Say I can grow a duplicate of my present body. Assume that I can do something that prevents the "new" bodies brain from developing (a lot of my teachers would probably say that's what happened to me!!!)What are the ethics if I take a heart or 2 lungs or whatever from my "spare" body? I suspect your feelings are different depending on if you are 20 years old or if you are 80 years old!! : : John : : : Too true John, it is a moral minefield! Not to mention the legal difficulties which are already appearing - people patenting genes or even whole genetically modified organisms. Would a human clone be treated as a separate human being, or a "Wholely owned subsidiary" of the original? : There is a naturally occurring defect (not very common) where babies are born with only the primitive areas of the brain present. In that the body's basic functions are regulated, but there isn't a possibility that the baby can think or be aware. If the cause of this defect could be artificially triggered then clones for "spare parts" might be a possibility, though still a repugnant one. : To Live Forever as well as being a good adventure story (like all Vance books) can be seen an impressive social commentary. Here Vance uses an extremely exaggerated situation to look at the relative merits of striving for recognition and advancement (with the prize being the possible attainment of a version of immortality) or relaxing and enjoying life (the penalty being the certainty of a natural life-span). The difference between "The protestant work ethic" (or American dream?) and a "Hippy" attitude. I suppose in reality most of us end up with a compromise outlook, somewhere in-between.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: