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