Cloning Questions
Jun. 22nd, 2007 01:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jhameiaSo I watched one of the best Star Trek: Enterprise episodes I've seen in a while, and I pretty much spent half of it crying (not a bad thing, it's GOOD).
I couldn't care less to remember what the episode is, but in it, Trip (my second favourite character after Malcolm) falls into a coma and he needs replacement neural cells. The only way to do this is by giving a symbiote whose lifespan would be 15 days Trip's DNA, and using the neural cells from this "clone".
There've always been several questions with this sort of technology - one of the issues, of course, being that growing a child for the sake of cell donation has always been questionable. There've been many instances where parents have a child because an already existing child is suffering from some condition for which they can't find a matching donor of cells. Having a child purely for the sake of another sounds a bit extreme and I don't think there's ever been such a thing... most families I see do this also value this new child as much and welcome it as a new addition to the family. I very much prefer seeing a child be born for the sake of medical benefit than carelessness and irresponsibility.
The clone of Trip is named Sim, which I think is such an interesting pick - Sim for 'simulated'. 'Simulacra' was the first word that came to mind (which doesn't make sense.... Sim IS a copy WITH an original). A mini, faster-paced version of Trip, just like all those Sim- games we play.
In four days, Sim is the same physical age as Trip, and he has all of Trip's memories, as well as his own of his four days of existance. He talks about Trip's life like it's his own, and he contributes in his own way. He confesses his, or Trip's (he's not sure himself) feelings for T'Pol, and of course, then comes the time when everyone realizes not only can he not live for more than 15 days (without an experimental enzyme), if they go through with the operation he'll die instead of living his full 15 days.
There're several philosophical questions raised here. For instance, if a copy of Trip was made, and has his memories, his DNA, despite the "real" Trip lying in a coma in the same ship, what, then, is Sim's existance? Is he Trip? Or is he Sim? Or Simulation-Trip? Does he count as a human, or is he a 15-day symbiote?
What constitutes as real, versus "fake"? Is Sim "fake", and is his existance "invalid" simply because he's a copy? You can't even say he's a "copy" because he has his own memories which distinguish him from Trip - does he then constitute as his own individual?
It's a bit like the boat dilemma... in this case, the owner of a boat has it in the care of someone else. Over the years, the caretaker replaces parts of the boat as it rots away until the "original" boat is gone. When the owner comes back, is it still the same boat? Or is it a whole new boat entirely?
It's a HUGE ethical dilemma and I think it's a valid debate to consider when thinking about the possibilities of cloning. First we have to consider what IS an individual before going off making an entire new one from scratch. Secondly, if a clone can be considered an individual, would it be right to cultivate one just for the sole purpose of killing him/her for the progenitor's sake?
What is the sum of a person's life?
Or a "copy"?
I couldn't care less to remember what the episode is, but in it, Trip (my second favourite character after Malcolm) falls into a coma and he needs replacement neural cells. The only way to do this is by giving a symbiote whose lifespan would be 15 days Trip's DNA, and using the neural cells from this "clone".
There've always been several questions with this sort of technology - one of the issues, of course, being that growing a child for the sake of cell donation has always been questionable. There've been many instances where parents have a child because an already existing child is suffering from some condition for which they can't find a matching donor of cells. Having a child purely for the sake of another sounds a bit extreme and I don't think there's ever been such a thing... most families I see do this also value this new child as much and welcome it as a new addition to the family. I very much prefer seeing a child be born for the sake of medical benefit than carelessness and irresponsibility.
The clone of Trip is named Sim, which I think is such an interesting pick - Sim for 'simulated'. 'Simulacra' was the first word that came to mind (which doesn't make sense.... Sim IS a copy WITH an original). A mini, faster-paced version of Trip, just like all those Sim- games we play.
In four days, Sim is the same physical age as Trip, and he has all of Trip's memories, as well as his own of his four days of existance. He talks about Trip's life like it's his own, and he contributes in his own way. He confesses his, or Trip's (he's not sure himself) feelings for T'Pol, and of course, then comes the time when everyone realizes not only can he not live for more than 15 days (without an experimental enzyme), if they go through with the operation he'll die instead of living his full 15 days.
There're several philosophical questions raised here. For instance, if a copy of Trip was made, and has his memories, his DNA, despite the "real" Trip lying in a coma in the same ship, what, then, is Sim's existance? Is he Trip? Or is he Sim? Or Simulation-Trip? Does he count as a human, or is he a 15-day symbiote?
What constitutes as real, versus "fake"? Is Sim "fake", and is his existance "invalid" simply because he's a copy? You can't even say he's a "copy" because he has his own memories which distinguish him from Trip - does he then constitute as his own individual?
It's a bit like the boat dilemma... in this case, the owner of a boat has it in the care of someone else. Over the years, the caretaker replaces parts of the boat as it rots away until the "original" boat is gone. When the owner comes back, is it still the same boat? Or is it a whole new boat entirely?
It's a HUGE ethical dilemma and I think it's a valid debate to consider when thinking about the possibilities of cloning. First we have to consider what IS an individual before going off making an entire new one from scratch. Secondly, if a clone can be considered an individual, would it be right to cultivate one just for the sole purpose of killing him/her for the progenitor's sake?
What is the sum of a person's life?
Or a "copy"?