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 

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

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 



 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


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24958