Posted by willem on March 12, 1998 at 11:28:29:
In Reply to: Re: To Live Forever -- Cloning and the Hero posted by Suan Yong on March 12, 1998 at 08:28:06:
: >Assume that I can do something that prevents the "new" bodies brain
: >from developing... What are the ethics if I take a heart or 2 lungs
: >or whatever from my "spare" body?
: The question (IMO) boils down to whether we have a "soul" (for lack
: of a better word), and whether a `brainless' clone would still have
: a "soul", and `deserve' to live... (for that matter, do animals have
: a soul? how about a fetus?) I think science's next big goal should
: be to discover what (if anything) this "soul" is that makes us tick.
: Suan
I agree Suan, the point is that many religions claim to have a solution to this question. I myself believe to believe the thruth (otherwise I would believe in the other one, which would then be the thruth)
But suppose there is a soul, then 'To live forever' did not discuss that. The story works with the concept that any of the bodies waking up would automatically take over the previous life in the sense that the continuity of 'being alive and selfconsious' would be undisturbed, but as to how ???
That left me a little sad when I finished the book. Overall I liked this early work as one of the best books of Vance.
Smart planning, energy in Gavin, action and a clever plot.
My main point is that Vance was very smart/forseeing in using concepts that come into existence today. One mentioned in the thread is the ratrace in itself. Present illness is that everybody is short of time, while we have on average less children, more household equipment and shorter work weeks (at least the contracts state less hours then 50 years ago)
Same time problem is found in the book and there it is out of fear for not making Amaranth on time.
willem