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 : : : **************************************************************************************************************************************************** : Sorry, I did not make myself clear. : The Characters in the book are not interested in cloning it is just a means to immortality. I'm sure Vances point was that however you tried to clone yourself and duplicate memories to attain immortality, it would be futile. : The " lie " was thart the Amarath thought they were immortal but they were just different bodies with superimposed minds. : My point to Martin was that the Amarath clones would in fact be no different to Cloning in the real world because neither would be a continuation of the originals life. : Clifford

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: