Would You Raise a Clone of Yourself?

[TriflinThomas]

Let's say you were around 35 years old (or however old you consider child-rearing age) and you could raise a clone of yourself instead of having a child (you have a steady job with ample pay), would you do it? I think it would be interesting to see how I would have grown up if I had a better childhood.

 

[Architect]

I essentially am. I got a little INTP who looks up to me, even discounting MBTI he is very much like me. I tell people I got a clone.

It's pretty nice.

 

[Minuend]

I would not create a child just to treat it as an experiment and satisfy my own perverse curiosity.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Hmmm....

This would present a great number of opportunities for unethical experimentation.
Would the child legally be considered you, or a being in it's own right? What if you grow a clone of yourself sans prefrontal cortex?

I have no desire to be a parent, although dealing with a clone could be interesting.
My initial inclination would be to raise quite a few in different environments, to see how just deterministic our natures are and how environmental cues switch on specific genes or change development.

Of course ethics.

Legality issues of the future are fun to ponder.

 

[DeadonDreaming]

I would battle it against other clones

 

[SpaceYeti]

My son is already essentially a small me. Though the world comes to an end every time he's upset. He didn't get that from me, I assure you.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, without any forethought. I would be a patient and caring father and this situation would feed my narcissism and thirst for experimentation.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I essentially am. I got a little INTP who looks up to me, even discounting MBTI he is very much like me. I tell people I got a clone.

It's pretty nice.

Your Pness?

I'm much more interested in diversity than sameness. Yes, I see a lot of myself in my own kids, but it's their emerging individuality that keeps the drudgery of parenting at bay. The idea of my kids as 'mini-mes' is quite off-putting actually. Clones are just photocopies. If my kids are just photocopies of myself, then I'm rendered a photocopy as well. I want us all to grow intellectually, not be duplicates.

Actually, I don't really believe MBTI applies to developing minds. It might be accurate for a given moment, but I don't see any proof to support the idea that it's a linear path. Human intellect isn't linear. Hence, I refuse to type my kids. At their developmental level, it would be just another "Ah, you're a jock/computer nerd/fuck-up/psychopath, etc." They get enough of that shit in the real world already. If they want to discover Typology for themselves, great, but I refuse to force them into a box of "XXXX = you can do 'this' well but you're going to suck at 'that'..."

EDIT* On a deeper level, I think the idea of cloning really fucks with my fierce (overdeveloped?) individualist leanings. When my own parents would say things like "You're just like your father." or "That's exactly how I think/feel/believe...", I'd just want to scream "This is MY box, not yours! Stay in your own damned box!" I kind of sort of still feel that inclination when too many similarities between myself and my kids become obvious. When people say "Awwww, look, he's just like his father." I want to tell them "Shut up!. He's his own person, damnitt!"

 

[kora]

I voted no, i would constantly feel in competition with it, and get jealous of it. i wouldn't feel so unique as well. Not that I feel that unique anyway... What if it turned out more successful than me? I would be so bitter. However, it would be interesting to say the least;

 

[DeadonDreaming]

I voted no, i would constantly feel in competition with it, and get jealous of it. i wouldn't feel so unique as well. Not that I feel that unique anyway... What if it turned out more successful than me? I would be so bitter. However, it would be interesting to say the least;

@higs Every time your clone gets too full of itself, you can whack it with a stick. I'm assuming these clones stay Mini-Me size.

 

[Oedipus]

No. Besides the issues with morality and my lack of maternal instinct, I feel like talking to myself (especially between, say, 7 and 15) would be terribly cringey and just generally a bad time for both parties.

 

[Etheri]

I would not create a child just to treat it as an experiment and satisfy my own perverse curiosity.

^This.
Also, are we talking as 'clone that you raise but has the same DNA', or are we talking 100% identical clone (age, previous experiences,...). While I truly want to understand myself, I don't find me as interesting as other people. (I discover myself through thought and reflection, not through experiment.)

I might consider the 100% identical clone... Then again, does the world need me twice?

Perhaps me and my identical clone could agree to share lives, and both live a double life at once. We could visit my parents only half as often. We could talk to people only half as often, or give them twice as much love and affection without feeling worn out at the end of the day.

We'd have more time alone while having an easier time sustaining relations with more 'needy' people. Sounds like a masterplan.

 

[skip]

No, I'd be more inclined to pick a child already here.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I would not create a child just to treat it as an experiment and satisfy my own perverse curiosity.

Really? That's just about the only reason I could see myself having a child...

 

[DeadonDreaming]

Really? That's just about the only reason I could see myself having a child...

+1

 

[TriflinThomas]

^This.
Also, are we talking as 'clone that you raise but has the same DNA', or are we talking 100% identical clone (age, previous experiences,...)

It only has the same dna.

 

[intpz]

Hell no, I'm too self-centered and want to get everything myself.

 

[PhoenixRising]

While cloning myself would be better than taking the risk of producing some deadbeat from random genetics, I would prefer not to do either. One, I have no interest in raising children. Two, I would never curse a clone with my genetics. I was so ill most of my childhood, I missed out on everything, including school.

 

[intpz]

While cloning myself would be better than taking the risk of producing some deadbeat from random genetics, I would prefer not to do either. One, I have no interest in raising children. Two, I would never curse a clone with my genetics. I was so ill most of my childhood, I missed out on everything, including school.

Missing school is good, less corporate order bullshit combined with drone-oriented pointless data.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Missing school is good, less corporate order bullshit combined with drone-oriented pointless data.

Well that's true in a way. But if I was gone for more than a couple days I'd get tons of homework sent to my house.

 

[intpz]

Well that's true in a way. But if I was gone for more than a couple days I'd get tons of homework sent to my house.

Say that a wild cat was sleeping on your mailbox for days, and whenever you've approached it, it tried to bite your fingers off.

To be honest, I could never understand "they send homework" argument. To me, I've never got any homework to home. To others, teachers asked to bring homework, in which case you can make them lie something and lie yourself. Or ask prior to that to decline by lie or directness. If the teacher does it... Well, fuck her. She's a fucking teacher, what fucking right does she have to barge in to your home? You're sick! You have to REST, not do meaningless shit. C'mon, that's why I skipped school so much.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I missed the part where this was at all immoral or an experiment. I'm confused.

 

[intpz]

...If cloning was possible, I wonder how would it look like when 2 similar people would be standing near one another and thinking the same thing? Wouldn't it mean that making a copy of your brain isn't you as the same person, hence if you were killed, you wouldn't be functional anymore, while your clone would? I'm not talking about consciousness here. The only way of living forever as I see it is preserving your brain.

 

[SpaceYeti]

...If cloning was possible, I wonder how would it look like when 2 similar people would be standing near one another and thinking the same thing? Wouldn't it mean that making a copy of your brain isn't you as the same person, hence if you were killed, you wouldn't be functional anymore, while your clone would? I'm not talking about consciousness here. The only way of living forever as I see it is preserving your brain.

This is a separate thing from the subject, but I agree with you. I've discussed this idea at length with a friend of mine. The way I see it, once your brain is dead, you're dead, no matter how awesome the copy you made is. A fictional transporter illustrates it well, I think.

Let's say there's a transporter device which destroys your physical body, and sends it's information to a sister machine, which assembles an exact duplicate.

Let's say there's a problem with the first machine, and it does not destroy your original body, yet the copy is still made. Obviously, the copy is not you, since you're still fully alive, fully functional, at your start point.

The same is true for putting your mind in a computer, or something like it. Unless it's a direct link and life support system for your brain, how does your mind actually enter the machine? After all, your mind is the effect of your brain functions. Even if you made a program which exactly duplicated your thoughts, it's still not you.

 

[intpz]

This is a separate thing from the subject, but I agree with you. I've discussed this idea at length with a friend of mine. The way I see it, once your brain is dead, you're dead, no matter how awesome the copy you made is. A fictional transporter illustrates it well, I think.

Let's say there's a transporter device which destroys your physical body, and sends it's information to a sister machine, which assembles an exact duplicate.

Let's say there's a problem with the first machine, and it does not destroy your original body, yet the copy is still made. Obviously, the copy is not you, since you're still fully alive, fully functional, at your start point.

The same is true for putting your mind in a computer, or something like it. Unless it's a direct link and life support system for your brain, how does your mind actually enter the machine? After all, your mind is the effect of your brain functions. Even if you made a program which exactly duplicated your thoughts, it's still not you.

Yes, it's a CPU with memory modules and a hard drive. You rip it out, you're dead. However, to OTHERS you can appear the same. That's the advantage for the government and the like: if a valuable asset is killed or has died, you can simply clone him and he wouldn't even know it. While the original him is dead, his clone appears to be him to everyone else.

 

[Yet]

Let's say you were around 35 years old (or however old you consider child-rearing age) and you could raise a clone of yourself instead of having a child (you have a steady job with ample pay), would you do it? I think it would be interesting to see how I would have grown up if I had a better childhood.

nope, with same sets of genes there's no evolution. I am no evolution specialist what so ever ... but I believe genetic variation has quite some advantages for survival of the species.

and:
A clone would be different from myself more and more gradually (environmental influences).
I cannot find a reason in my thinking why my sets of genes should 'exist' again.

 

[Cognisant]

The same is true for putting your mind in a computer, or something like it. Unless it's a direct link and life support system for your brain, how does your mind actually enter the machine? After all, your mind is the effect of your brain functions. Even if you made a program which exactly duplicated your thoughts, it's still not you.

If you really, really think about it the whole question of whether or not it's actually you boils down to whether or not you believes it is, I mean if both people who came out of the transporter think they're you and there's no discernible physical difference between them then they are both you, two branches from the original line of continuity.

If I replace my brain neuron my neuron with external processing am I transitioning into the machine or dying and being copied? As far as I'm aware it was a smooth transition

 

[SpaceYeti]

Because you want them to. You're treating evolution like it's some kind of moral code, or even an entity with feelings you might hurt. It's a process, nothing more.

 

[Yet]

Because you want them to. You're treating evolution like it's some kind of moral code, or even an entity with feelings you might hurt. It's a process, nothing more.

Was this a reply on my post?
If it is you cannot read.
I don't talk about evolution as a moral code or an entity with feelings. That is extremely stupid.

I talk about a proces. I cannot find a reason in my thinking why my sets of genes should 'exist' again.

If you find it interesting you found your reason.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Nobody said they "should", though. The difference between your clone and a kid you had with someone else is incidental. It's merely genetic.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmi_UTsjtE

 

[Yet]

Nobody said they "should", though. The difference between your clone and a kid you had with someone else is incidental. It's merely genetic.

ok, I did not mean 'should' as in 'allowed' or 'have to' or whatever ... but as an answer to the personal question of the topic starter.
I was answering TS.

I cannot think of a reason why I would/should raise a clone of myself. I prefer the surprise of the genetical mix.

 

[Yet]

Hey Esc

Youtube tells me that the poster on YouTube did not make his post available, watchable in my country ...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Hi Yet, I don't know if you can see the title, but it's the Mini Me scene from Austin Powers.

[bimgx=300]http://i.imgur.com/fe9eu.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Yet]

thx

I know that one