4 ms·

We play god all the time, and I'm glad for it. Little about human habitat is natural, it's all reshaped to our need by us. In terms of responsibility, it can be

by ivalm 3y ago

We play god all the time, and I'm glad for it. Little about human habitat is natural, it's all reshaped to our need by us. In terms of responsibility, it can be the same as normal children -- either they are assigned parents or they are wards of the state. They should have same rights as other people.

dotnet00 3y ago
The point about playing god isn't about it being unnatural, but that you're touching against some fundamental things about being human and our limited understanding of the limits of things something of a similar intelligence level should be subjected to. Responsibility was just one example of the ethical quandries that arise with cloning thrown into the mix, why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children? How do inheritance rights play out? What do we make of things like DNA tests as meaningful evidence in criminal cases? Who gets to have themselves cloned, and how do you prevent misuse of the technology? Is it misuse to say, store the DNA of the best soldiers, best athletes etc so as to create clones to meet demand in those areas? And if that isn't the intention for cloning, why do cloning at all instead of something like artificial wombs? Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? Children who are raised in the foster system will typically have a harder time than those who have families which can provide financial backing, so unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. As it stands, we aren't even mature enough to have a proper conversation about the much less dangerous ethics of creating rudimentary "intelligences" in the form of current generation AI. How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative.
- ivalm 3y ago
  These all seem very solvable. Also, when I say “cloned” I mean also a broader set of technologies, such as artificial wombs and genetic designer babies. If desired all couples should have the ability to create children in artificial wombs and have them be exact clones or some designed mixes. These mixes/clones can contain their own dna or that of others. In general, I think genetic sequences should be open source and if we get a ton of Einsteins, Michael Jordans, etc then we’re better for it. > why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children Same as why we have children at all, some people want to have children that are their own. > unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. I absolutely agree that all children should be when possible with parents and clones/design babies need to be given the same care/rights/support as normal children. > Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? We develop it not on humans first. We then use it to design babies for parents with genetic abnormalities. > How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? We grant them all rights. I think there will naturally be enough diversity, and monoculture scare is less meaningful when we can breed new generations with proper adaptations. Essentially we can get almost all benefits of having a diverse genetic pool (and I do think we should financially incentivize diversity). > How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative. I don’t think there is any difference between normal children, cloned children, and designed children.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    I didn't expect you'd actually reply to everything! :) But yes, if by cloning you're referring to just the broad set of technologies involved like artificial wombs, rather than specifically the technology to grow an exact copy of an existing human, I agree that the ethical problems are a lot more solvable and the tech a lot more justifiable as it would be compensating for medical issues. As for developing it with animals first, of course we would do that, but at some point it has to be tested on humans, which still involves the same risks since developmentally we are fairly different from most animals, especially when it comes to the brain.

by ivalm 3y ago

dotnet00 3y ago

The point about playing god isn't about it being unnatural, but that you're touching against some fundamental things about being human and our limited understanding of the limits of things something of a similar intelligence level should be subjected to. Responsibility was just one example of the ethical quandries that arise with cloning thrown into the mix, why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children? How do inheritance rights play out? What do we make of things like DNA tests as meaningful evidence in criminal cases? Who gets to have themselves cloned, and how do you prevent misuse of the technology? Is it misuse to say, store the DNA of the best soldiers, best athletes etc so as to create clones to meet demand in those areas? And if that isn't the intention for cloning, why do cloning at all instead of something like artificial wombs? Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? Children who are raised in the foster system will typically have a harder time than those who have families which can provide financial backing, so unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. As it stands, we aren't even mature enough to have a proper conversation about the much less dangerous ethics of creating rudimentary "intelligences" in the form of current generation AI. How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative.

ivalm 3y ago
These all seem very solvable. Also, when I say “cloned” I mean also a broader set of technologies, such as artificial wombs and genetic designer babies. If desired all couples should have the ability to create children in artificial wombs and have them be exact clones or some designed mixes. These mixes/clones can contain their own dna or that of others. In general, I think genetic sequences should be open source and if we get a ton of Einsteins, Michael Jordans, etc then we’re better for it. > why should we create cloned children when the state already can't do good by orphaned children Same as why we have children at all, some people want to have children that are their own. > unless the clone is raised by a family as their own child, we'd effectively be creating a subservient class by cloning, since while with normal children, losing their family is not necessarily known ahead of time, with a clone that isn't the case. I absolutely agree that all children should be when possible with parents and clones/design babies need to be given the same care/rights/support as normal children. > Is it worth the suffering of all the imperfect clones (and the surrogate mothers within whom they'd be grown) that will inevitably be produced during the development of the technology? We develop it not on humans first. We then use it to design babies for parents with genetic abnormalities. > How do we deal with reproductive rights of clones and their impact on genetic diversity? We grant them all rights. I think there will naturally be enough diversity, and monoculture scare is less meaningful when we can breed new generations with proper adaptations. Essentially we can get almost all benefits of having a diverse genetic pool (and I do think we should financially incentivize diversity). > How are we, as a society, supposed to then have a proper conversation about the ethics of creating full human intelligences? With normal children we can at least point to a biological imperative. I don’t think there is any difference between normal children, cloned children, and designed children.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  I didn't expect you'd actually reply to everything! :) But yes, if by cloning you're referring to just the broad set of technologies involved like artificial wombs, rather than specifically the technology to grow an exact copy of an existing human, I agree that the ethical problems are a lot more solvable and the tech a lot more justifiable as it would be compensating for medical issues. As for developing it with animals first, of course we would do that, but at some point it has to be tested on humans, which still involves the same risks since developmentally we are fairly different from most animals, especially when it comes to the brain.