X-Message-Number: 28182
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: human screener <>
Subject: TimesUK-- DNA screen-- paradox

DNA screen-- paradox

Review: 

	Mark Plus posted a TimesUK article indicating
optimism about zygote screening progrem that catches
6000 DNA defects and discards DNA defective
zygotes.[1] Human screener wondered if Mark himself
would have passed the newly invented extensive
screen.[2] Mark said probably not.[3] 
	Human screener says something's wrong with supporting
a technology that would have prevented one's own
existence and asks for concurrance.[4] Anthony
responds but does not concur, saying the will to live
overrides the apparent hypocrisy of supporting a
technology that would have prevented one's own
existence. He sees no problem in that.[5] Screener
doesn't accept Anthony's argument because the will to
live is a simple biological drive, whereas the
hypocrisy of supporting a technology that would have
prevented one's own existence is a thought experiment.
In this instance, the thought experiment leads to a
paradox-- the Zygote Screening Paradox-- and the
paradox represents a problem that still stands.[6]
	Anthony again tries to argue that the problem paradox
doesn't exist on the basis that there are other
technologies that result in people not coming into
existence that are clearly not paradoxical-- and that
zygote screening is in the same category as those
other technologies.[7]

[1] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28180
[2] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28158
[3] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28159
[4] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28166
[5] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28171
[6] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28179
[7] http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=28180

Screener's response:

	Anthony is quite correct when he says that support
for technologies or actions that prevent the existence
of not-yet-existing persons are enacted by many people
in many ways such as abstaining, not doing IVF, not
cloning, and not doubling the capacity of the womb. He
says the decisions made to not procreate in those ways
does not mean that we support the retroactive
annihilation of ourselves. Then he says zygote
screening is of the same category.
	I agree that support of those other technologies does
not mean we support our retroactive annihilation but
zygote screening is not in the same category as the
other technologies because zygote screening is DNA
specific and so each of us can know for certain
whether or not we would have personally passed the
fertility lab's test or not. The other technologies
are not complete-DNA-set specific so we cannot know
whether we, ourselves, would personally have been
annihalated. So the original problem of the paradox of
Mark being optimistic about a screening process that
we can theoretically know would have eliminated him,
personally, as he himself admits, stands.


__________________________________________________
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=28182

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster's reputation was too low.
It thus may need to be rated.