X-Message-Number: 24958 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:54:56 -0500 From: Randolfe Wicker <> Subject: Incest or masturbation? Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Immortalists should consider "eternally youthful healthy bodies" as the capsules in which to spend >countless years. Reproduction? Why does reproduction take two or more. One can simply reproduce a >later-born twin (a perfect social companion and family member) through cloning. Question for Randy, I once asked this of the people gathered with me to debate the cloning issue on a local "Town Hall" TV show. To break the ice just before airtime I said to everyone. "Well what I truly think we're all here to figure out is the over abiding question, 'If one has sex with one's clone is it incest or masturbation?'" Everyone cracked up and the laughter was very much welcomed as we got ready to discuss the situation with Dolly and what may come. However, I would not be surprised if the most indulgent of narcissists found this to be the only way to find a suitable life partner. Would we condone or call it perversion? I am most happy that you asked this question. It is particularly relevant to me since I am both the first reproductive cloning activist and also a homosexual. Actually, your amusing comment probably originated from the Jon Stewart (Comedy Central) show in which they tossed the same question at both me and a representative of the Roman Catholic Church. To their credit, they made the Roman Catholic spokesman look ridiculous. When asked that question, he put his hand on his chin and replied: "I really don't know." I said such questions were "beyond the pail" and did not deserve an answer. They took this response and edited in to a question about my later-born twin opening a competitive lamp shop across the street from my own. I intentionally said that a "later-born twin" would be a "perfect social companion and family member". People always want to bring up the subject of incest, especially when they know that the leading advocate of reproductive cloning is a homosexual. (Thanks for your comments regarding homophobia.) Now, as to the issue of "incest" and the issue of "me having sex with a later-born twin of me", let me explain a few things you never thought of. First of all, I am a masculine male who finds feminine males attractive. So, if I was to end up in bed with "a later-born twin of me", we would not be sexually compatible. I can imagine a wrestling match till dawn between the two of us to see who would be the "top." You heterosexuals don't have to deal with that problem. Your roles are more easily defined. My later-born twin would be perfect "social" companion. However, I would not find him attractive (he would be too masculine) and we would not be compatible in bed. So much for the silly idea that one would clone oneself for sexual companionship. Most of us there for the debate were in the affirmative for cloning in general. However, one vapid headed PETA person was asked point blank by the moderator -- a local semi celebrity news anchor -- and she sat right next to me, if she would oppose the cloning of tissue to help me walk again. Cruelly and to me ignorantly and stupidly she consigned me to ever be disabled in this life and her sole reason was to protect some poor mouse or mice from the experimentation to perfect the process. Yes, this is typical of activists in the PETA movement. I was once a member but I dropped out after a year, You and your life is much more valuable than that of a mouse!! >For that matter, romance, aided by technology, might help solve the population problem by enabling >"two people in love" to literally become one. There will not be a population problem first of all and second what happens when they have irreconcilable differences and seek a divorce? No, it won't be a population problem because this would reduce population. You are fabulous for asking the rational next question to my theoretical proposition. I really don't know what to say. I guess, once you and your loved one became 'one', we would have to have a process through which you could become different individuals again. > If we can turn back the clock, why couldn't we find a way to merge and solidify instead of >constantly dividing and multiplying? >All this is far out for Cryonet. However, would anyone want to spend an eternity as a prisoner in >a paralyzed body like Christopher Reeve did for years? Would one want to live on forever with >terrible arthritis pain or irritable bowel syndrome? No, the quality of life is just as important >as its duration. No and No, but... These are moot points because if there is ever a capability to, in the first place, turn back the clock -- I assume you mean aging, or whatever else consists of making us long lived beings to necessarily consider and ponder the imponderables of lives so long, we'll surely have the technology to free one from any and every malady causing bodily imprisonment through disability or pain or otherwise. This seems reasonable. However I am hot sure that technology is so seamless. I suspect progress will be erratic. We might be able to bring you back but we might not be able to cure your disability. >Cryonicists should simply want to be brought out of suspension, have their illnesses corrected, the >aging process reversed and to live on in the body they know with all its capacities for pleasure >restored. This is true but what then? Do we stagnate there, end up dying again, possibly in such a manner as to not make further cryopreservation possibly, or do we seek to go further? Mr. Swayze, you disappoint me here. Once we are brought back and aging is reversed, we will not end up "dying again" and "future cryopreservation" will not be necessary. I was recently asked if I personally believe in Physical Immortality and this was/is my answer. " As to physical immortality, no I don't think we can achieve it, unless we discover how to manipulate time. I don't believe a copy or sum of me will do, I don't expect to be able to dodge every danger there is. I just want to live as long as I can. When it comes to a time that I have no choice but to upload or enter the transporter beam I will bid my duplicate a good life and see for myself if oblivion is forever. I am joyous to see that you see having 'MY DUPLICATE A GOOD LIFE" is a real step towards immortality even if "you" (as you know yourself to be) is not involved. This is one of my major issues with other immortalists. For me, having my "genotype" live on is actually achieving a "partial temporary immortality". Since that is a real possibility, I am willing to give up "grabbing for the brass ring" just to see that the formula that is me lives on into another lifetime/lifetimes. Something that once represented some part of me may see the end of the universe but there on that day, noting that time references such as days, hours, etc., will have little meaning, so at that moment that entity will learn, unless able to escape to the past, that as all of existence fades *no* one is not immortal." All the above said is fine and good but to sum up, I think Physical Immortality is something to strive for and for myself I might be able to get my head around a soft upload or gradual, I am still unsure. However, I see this as a learning process still in the works and there is time to learn more. Perhaps some day I'll be able to relinquish my idea of a self centric identity of me in here looking out. Maybe after enhancement of intellect and if possible as I've mentioned so many times sharing my mind with an AI self I'll become to feel more distributed in my identity or more shared with others and so begin to believe less in the importance of this original *me* continuing with solid unbroken continuity through all of time. We'll see! I know that you want to be genetically enhanced. So do I. There are many improvements that can be made to the "basic me". I listed them in my talk at the Transhumanist "War on Cancer" seminar at NYU. For now, let me tell you that I really appreciate your participation in these forums. You have been touched by the "loving" of those who share your beliefs here (having your own survival paid for). By being so astute and eager and honest in these discussions, you repay those who have helped you. You are one of my heroes. What more can I say? Cloningly yours, Randolfe Wicker >Message #24944 Randolfe H. Wicker Founder, Clone Rights United Front www.clonerights.com Spokesperson, Reproductive Cloning Network, www.reproductivecloning.net Correspondent, Stem Cells Club, www.stemcellsclub.com Advisor, The Immortality Institute, www.imminst.org 201-656-3280 (Mornings) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24958