X-Message-Number: 28158
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: human screener <>
Subject: Would Mark's DNA have passed the screen?

It would be interesting to see how many of the
existing cryonicists would have been screened out
according to the current DNA test Mark referred us to.
Would Mark, himself, have passed the screen, I wonder.
Interesting food for thought. 

Legiitimate diseases would be legitimately screened
out in the far future of course. Who wants such things
as Hodgkins Disease? Nobody. However, what if the
"disease" is "synesthesia" or "extreme memory
retention"? The potential political abuse is obvious.

The lesson is that any tool-- regardless of the level
of anti-entropic action-- has the potential for good
use or evil abuse. The interesting question arising
from the lesson regards not the development itself--
which is a hallmark of the healthy human creative mind
over time and eons-- but rather what our application
of the technology is. 

In the case Mark raises, will the application be to
screen out "liberals"? In theory, liberals could be
ascribed peculiar genetic whole brain traits that
"conservatives" don't have. Would "religionists" who
fantasize whole non-existent ideal worlds be screened
out? Markers for relitionists will inevitably evolve. 

The essential feature of the problem I'm point out
here is that Mark is right to draw attention to
minimizing disease-- but at the same time, we are
living in a time when disease has exanded its
defintiion to include mental traits. 

Furthermore, there are geniuses who have contributed
much to humanity whose biological function was less
than perfect. Would Glen Gould have been screened out?
Gould was a genius piano player who interpreted Bach
with high skill, yet died an early death at 50 from
what appears to be genetic predisposition toward lung
infection. Using Mark's screen, Gould would hever have
existed. 

Cryonicsts have a lot to think about. They're not,
apparently, leading thinkers in the ethical arena.
Mark appears to be one who would apply a screen to 200
physical disfunctions without concern for these
ethical issues. How many of the 200 disfunctions are,
in fact (for example) purely physical - and how many
have been sqeezed in under the rubric of being
physical which are better thought of as cognitive?
(and therefore partly political or social?)

Embryos, once manifested as embryos, are a fait
accomplis in many faiths. In effect, you have a human
being there. Our mission, as humans is to bring THAT
human to fruition. You can't simply, as a cryonicist
say that we're going to "screen you", like in a job
interview or a credit report- and determine whether or
not you "get the job", "get the loan" or, in the case
of genetic screeing "get to exist". Execution of an
embryo is, from Mark's apparent point of view, is a
legitimate course of action for the problematic human.
Once again, I ask-- would Mark himself have made the
cut? That would be very interesting to know someday.
Don't YOU think, fellow cryonicist?







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28158