What population size problem? Birth rates have plummeted in all developed countries. As more countries become developed the same thing will happen. The population size problem is already solved - birth control, freedom for women, middle class lifestyles, etc.
Population size isn't much of a concern right now so idk what OP is talking about, but I doubt population size is solved. Natural selection, in absence of premature death, selects for those that give birth the most. So while at the moment, we are in a sort of lull, eventually the people who have a low birth rate, will be selected out of the population. The only way this doesn't happen is with another force acting in the opposite direction. For example, maybe whatever is causing the birth rate decline now, actually counters the incentives of natural selection over hundreds or thousands of years, or the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth such that premature death becomes common once again.
There is no such thing as overpopulation problem. In urban planning we are always considering ways we can engineer cities to hold 100 million people to a billion people. In fact, that would be a great alternative to suburbanism and increase forestry with the extra land. So this whole random idea of overpopulation is alarmism over nothing.
Granted, high population also means small 'mansions' and maybe THAT is their greatest worry.
Regardless of the source of the problem, the end result is the same: not enough people. Cloning treats that symptom even if it doesn't address the source. But yes, you're left with a new problem: who will raise these new people? If it came down to it, the state. Or the state would assign children to couples.
Couples are unlikely to accept. So the only option would be for the state to raise them... I think I saw some sci fi movie where the galactic republic solved a problem with hostile robots this way..
If the clones are wards of the state, then an industrialized/automated approach to child-rearing becomes plausible. Yes, this is dystopian. But if we're going to do it, we should use the Montessori model, with each cohort helping raise the next.
> Then people can stop fighting about birth rates and immigration.
If human cloning ever becomes accepted, I suspect racism will end up promoting an even smaller gene pool than it already does, with anyone who isn't a clone of Dear Leader And His Chosen Ones forming the out-group.
why should we allow human cloning? at some point won't we just get evil clones coming out of russia to fight the next big war? We could even alter them just enough to call them sub-human, store them in cages and teach them to shoot machine guns.
Why should someone be allowed to say truly deranged ramblings? But calling them out for it is not okay? Truly a vile culture and you should be ashamed for creating a safe space for people to spout eugenics.
Eugenics was not the topic of their comment. You immediately assumed malintent. HN is a place of Curious conversation. Your comment did not reflect that. I suggest you read the HN guidelines linked at the bottom of this page.
Yes, and if we completely eliminated all other ethical restrictions on research, we'd innovate all the faster. Get those old Nazi scientists on the phone, there's slightly faster progress to be made!
The thing most people don't get about the Nazi scientists is that Nazi science was actually pretty bad because it turns out being a Nazi makes you a worse scientist. The horrific "experiments" most people think of had no scientific value and amounted to little more than torture and abuse but even "normal" science was hampered by paranoia about the supposedly corrupting influence of Jewish scientists' research.
The same is true about the Wunderwaffen btw. The "wonder weapons" were more of a lame marketing gimmick than actually feasible threats. They were mostly inconveniently oversized versions of existing weapons with no strategic use. Most of them never saw the light of day but wouldn't have skewed the outcome of the war, at least not in any direction favorable to the Nazis themselves.
Or self-cloning? Here's a thought to give you the shivering frights: What if a someone created a self-cloning version of themselves? Humanity could be replaced by a single clone.
Yes, that’s how it’s being applied here, referring to Mary’s own conception. It’s a Catholic doctrine that essentially says God called the Mary constructor with a status override flag of “originalSin = false”, so that she would go on to be a fitting vessel to carry Christ later.
No evidence of human parthenogenesis ('virgin birth') is known.
The immaculate conception was the conception of _Mary_, who was born without Original Sin (that's what makes it immaculate), in order to be clean enough to carry Jesus aand bear a virgin birth. The whole prior sentence should be sprinkled with 'allegedly' appropriately in every clause.
If you'd like this breadcrumb as something that could help make the world of the story feel like it could be our world, here's an interesting thing which is that Alan Turing thought that telepathy could be possible, and tried to account for this when designing the Turing Test.
If telepathy were to be possible as described in your story, you could explain it as mind-body dualism being real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism and that the new animal born from the person temporarily shares a neural link with the person's brain, causing the sharing of one spirit, and that when the neural link is broken as the animal separates, the spirit is still anchored to both parts of the formerly-unified nervous system. The explanation for why this wouldn't happen during standard childbirth is that mother and child don't share a neural link, only a blood link.
Your telepathy explanation is exactly where I was coming from. This is why I believe we'll be able to live forever without uploading our minds into computers.
Very nice, sort of reminds me of the Azabo from the Book of the New Sun. There is also a detach-3, but couldn't find any more story, nor an index to these stories in the website.
Very good investigation. Detach 4 wasn't good enough to upload but 3 did kind of expand into 5, 5.2, and 5.3. As much as I want to turn Detach 5 into a nine chapter book, it's not easy.
The original notes that inspired all this are at detach.html without suffix. None of these are linked on the website as they are a work in progress. (Why have a personal website without some hidden gems?) The dream I think would be an anthology of short stories related to different paths from this kind of multiplicative ability.
As I understand it, this procedure would result in a near perfect clone baring a few random mutations in the stem cell which they could probably screen for.
To digress. I want a clone, more than anything. It's only thing I'd pay more than $100k+ for aside from housing.
I submit that society would benefit if every other generation was a clone. If I were raised by my parent-clone I would have matured faster and been more skilled at playing baby-roulette with a natural child.
Whenever I meet a 20-30 year old that has the temperament and calmness of a 40-50 year old I suspect one of two things:
1) their young-ish parents won at baby-roulette and their child had a personality similar to theirs and were able to guide them through adolescence in a more optimal way.
2) their parents were older and maturer and could navigate the personality conflicts in a way that didn't lead to long-term family dysfunction.
but even #2 is rare since not all older parents can handle all personality types, hence my suggestion for a third option: family lines based on alternate generation cloning.
>If I were raised by my parent-clone I would have matured faster and been more skilled at playing baby-roulette with a natural child.
This is leaning heavily on the assumption that your personality is primarily a product of your genetics, and not of your life experiences. Outside of relating on physiology, what makes you think you would understand their reactions to unique life experiences at such a young age?
Speaking as someone who had a dramatic personality shift from early trauma, I don't think that what you hypothesize is true.
"This is leaning heavily on the assumption that your personality is primarily a product of your genetics"
Not really. If you allow that it is even 1% due to genetics, that better parenting compounds over generations. And there is a lot of evidence that it is much more than 1%. I too experienced numerous traumatic events by the time I was 12 and was then prone towards neuroticism for decades after. I still submit I'd be a much better parent to a clone than someone who has half my dna.
The OP has no way of knowing if they would be a better parent, but yet they still very strongly think that they would be a better parent to a child that has 100% similar dna than 50% similar dna. How can you know this unless you are biased towards the idea of a clone? "I want a clone, more than anything" suggests there is bias.
Narcissism, maybe ? But given we have a surplus of adoptable children on this planet and not enough parents, I would argue most people have a natural child out of subconscious narcissism.
> most people have a natural child out of subconscious narcissism
I would imagine the desire to have a child that is genetically yours is a consequence of evolution. Those whose genes instill within them the desire to have a child of their own would be more driven to actually reproduce and pass on those genes.
Accepting your child may grow to hate you should be a pre-requisite for any aspiring parent. What we are doing is not "sane"[0]. Perhaps I am biased since I live in Southern California which is the Mecca for children of dysfunctional families.
> Most likely, your clone-child would grow to hate you. Why not just do things the sane way and marry a nice woman and have a child with her?
why is that 'most likely'?
certainly very few people would say that so bluntly to anyone interested in natural child rearing or adoption -- why does this circumstance permit one to make such a blunt and likely ill-informed (we don't have a lot of experience with human clones..) statement?
I am not sure you have much experience with children. Telling a child that you know what their personality will be because they are a copy of you and you would respond a certain way or do a certain thing is an absolute recipe for ensuring that the child will do the opposite of that thing. What you're describing is a procedure for creating as divergent of a personality in your clone as genetics will allow.
I'd rather just have a clone for spare organs. I wonder how long you can increase human lifespan if you have a supply of blood and organs from a perfect match 20 year old donor.
Numerous organisms regularly reproduce via cloning, including most of the oldest and largest organisms, e.g. Pando. Bacteria, many plants, and some simpler animals primarily reproduce via cloning.
Parthenogenesis is also a strategy employed as needed by fish, reptiles, and some birds.
I'm not suggesting that cloning is superior, but to call it "not a viable mechanism" is a mischaracterization.
However, bacteria have other ways of exchanging genetic material with each other, and more complex clonal organisms go extinct fairly quickly in geological time frames. But more will arise.
82 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadGranted, high population also means small 'mansions' and maybe THAT is their greatest worry.
Underpopulation is what I was referring to. Some countries have extremely low birth rates, and stabilizing them is important.
I don't see how cloning helps with that.
If human cloning ever becomes accepted, I suspect racism will end up promoting an even smaller gene pool than it already does, with anyone who isn't a clone of Dear Leader And His Chosen Ones forming the out-group.
Such a system would still hate immigration.
Seriously, we need to loosen the regulations on cloning, including animal and, yes, human cloning. We are holding back innovation.
The same is true about the Wunderwaffen btw. The "wonder weapons" were more of a lame marketing gimmick than actually feasible threats. They were mostly inconveniently oversized versions of existing weapons with no strategic use. Most of them never saw the light of day but wouldn't have skewed the outcome of the war, at least not in any direction favorable to the Nazis themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_crayfish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
No evidence of human parthenogenesis ('virgin birth') is known.
The immaculate conception was the conception of _Mary_, who was born without Original Sin (that's what makes it immaculate), in order to be clean enough to carry Jesus aand bear a virgin birth. The whole prior sentence should be sprinkled with 'allegedly' appropriately in every clause.
http://latenightsketches.com/detach-2.html
It could revive black mirror.
If you'd like this breadcrumb as something that could help make the world of the story feel like it could be our world, here's an interesting thing which is that Alan Turing thought that telepathy could be possible, and tried to account for this when designing the Turing Test.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19728844/extrasensory-pe...
If telepathy were to be possible as described in your story, you could explain it as mind-body dualism being real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism and that the new animal born from the person temporarily shares a neural link with the person's brain, causing the sharing of one spirit, and that when the neural link is broken as the animal separates, the spirit is still anchored to both parts of the formerly-unified nervous system. The explanation for why this wouldn't happen during standard childbirth is that mother and child don't share a neural link, only a blood link.
Here's another breadcrumb for this idea https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125093823.h...
Edit: oh you are the author, very good writing.
The original notes that inspired all this are at detach.html without suffix. None of these are linked on the website as they are a work in progress. (Why have a personal website without some hidden gems?) The dream I think would be an anthology of short stories related to different paths from this kind of multiplicative ability.
To digress. I want a clone, more than anything. It's only thing I'd pay more than $100k+ for aside from housing.
I submit that society would benefit if every other generation was a clone. If I were raised by my parent-clone I would have matured faster and been more skilled at playing baby-roulette with a natural child.
Whenever I meet a 20-30 year old that has the temperament and calmness of a 40-50 year old I suspect one of two things:
1) their young-ish parents won at baby-roulette and their child had a personality similar to theirs and were able to guide them through adolescence in a more optimal way.
2) their parents were older and maturer and could navigate the personality conflicts in a way that didn't lead to long-term family dysfunction.
but even #2 is rare since not all older parents can handle all personality types, hence my suggestion for a third option: family lines based on alternate generation cloning.
This is leaning heavily on the assumption that your personality is primarily a product of your genetics, and not of your life experiences. Outside of relating on physiology, what makes you think you would understand their reactions to unique life experiences at such a young age?
Speaking as someone who had a dramatic personality shift from early trauma, I don't think that what you hypothesize is true.
Not really. If you allow that it is even 1% due to genetics, that better parenting compounds over generations. And there is a lot of evidence that it is much more than 1%. I too experienced numerous traumatic events by the time I was 12 and was then prone towards neuroticism for decades after. I still submit I'd be a much better parent to a clone than someone who has half my dna.
The OP has no way of knowing if they would be a better parent, but yet they still very strongly think that they would be a better parent to a child that has 100% similar dna than 50% similar dna. How can you know this unless you are biased towards the idea of a clone? "I want a clone, more than anything" suggests there is bias.
Can you explain why you want a clone? Genetically identical twins can and do end up having very different lives and personalities.
I would imagine the desire to have a child that is genetically yours is a consequence of evolution. Those whose genes instill within them the desire to have a child of their own would be more driven to actually reproduce and pass on those genes.
[0] Opening paragraph of Anna Karenina, Tolstoy
why is that 'most likely'?
certainly very few people would say that so bluntly to anyone interested in natural child rearing or adoption -- why does this circumstance permit one to make such a blunt and likely ill-informed (we don't have a lot of experience with human clones..) statement?
It seems a good solution for the future of their population, the fertility rate will probably never go back to 2.
Parthenogenesis is also a strategy employed as needed by fish, reptiles, and some birds.
I'm not suggesting that cloning is superior, but to call it "not a viable mechanism" is a mischaracterization.
Parthenogenesis has also been induced in mammals (mice) in a lab setting, though it has not been observed in the wild yet.
However, bacteria have other ways of exchanging genetic material with each other, and more complex clonal organisms go extinct fairly quickly in geological time frames. But more will arise.