I'd probably say like a twin, depending on the process (accelerated ageing or not). It would also depend on the age at witch you were cloned, a very young clone and a very old man would probably be son/daughter possibly grandson/daughter.

You could never have a clone as a dad though.

Hmmm I wouldn't think oh him as a brother or son since he's exactly me or perhaps something better since he could take a different path in the future that might be more successive than me.
So I think he's essentially another me, could be a better me or worse in the future depends on the path both of us chosen.

So in the end, he's an individual you can only "Willingly" relate to.
But not forcibly, or by LAW.

Yes?

You can say that, yep.

Twin, I would say, because identical twins are nature's clones.

No, really, they have the same DNA.

Not all twins are genetically identical (with the same DNA, as per cloning) but 'identical twins' are.

Now, the question at hand (which I personally do not know) is that if the word "TWIN" does also include the clause:

"Being formed inside the same human being, aka. MOTHER, at the same time as your Twin did"

So it counts as twins. Or is it just Identical DNA codes.

For as you see, the event can actually take place in a near future:

A "peculiarly quirky" mother can have a son or daughter inside her, while replicating the same code artificially, outside her body.
And the result are identical twins. Yet, one born from her body, and one from a machine.

This Clause is most confusing to me.
Your thoughts?

Twin, the word, also applies to pairs of like objects. Twin cities, twin turbines, twin lakes. It means a linked pair, duality, two of a kind.

I think that applies to clones. The closest analog to a clone in real life is the identical twin (nature's clone) so there is already precedence in society for the two being siblings.

In my opinion!

Perhaps we would call them 'cloned twins' instead of fraternal/identical twins.

Hard question....I might think it as some kind of twin, since we share the same DNA structure.

Sounds sane.

Here's a dilemma: If ypu were to have sex with your clone, would that be incest or maturbation?

Both? XD

Well technically it's masturbation because you are technically both the same person, but it could also be incest because you are technically both members of the same family.

"Masturbation" is an event that can occur between 2 completely different people, from different heritage. Not just "oneself" on your own.

Perhaps the concept you were aiming at is "self-pleasure".

As for "Incest".

That's the CORE ISSUE here.

What makes family ties valid for incest?

a) Family heritage and name (as in, being accepted by the LAW, as part of the DNA group that spawned you).

b) DNA heritage (as in, just sharing the same DNA).

Choosing one of the two, will define what "Incest" between 2 identical people, actually is.

Sorry for being the downer in this case (at least with my own personal opinion :P) But I would say.. none of them..

Read my comment bellow for an explanation on why I think this :P

Oh right yeah, that's correct.

Well damn, just played a game where the main and another character are like this (Tales of the Abyss on the PS2/3DS)

They used the term 'perfect replica' due to the replica being exactly like him when he was made, but due to the two of them being in total different environments they both grew differently personality wise.

So at first there was the original, and his perfect replica. But them growing in that way ended up making them two entirely different beings. (The parents of the original called them both 'their two boys/sons'. But other people referred to one as the 'inferior replica' or worthless, but he eventually had everyone acknowledging him, as well as surpassing his 'original' through will/determination)


But it really depends on what you want to call them if you had an idea about it in a story or something

But that's the thing here.

A "Standard" must be formed in order to bring some "truth" into the matter.
To have many ideas about it, lingering around, indeed clouds the "value".

Ergo, I asked.

I'm tempted to go with the SOMETHING ELSE option... even though the brother/sister option as a twin could be the most close thing... he/she is not something really apart from me... it is me! :P

I would think of him/her as another me just with an apportunity to do things differently or just the same, it all depends on his/her choices.. because even if we are two entities of the same DNA, thoughts and experiences change our decitions and therefor the paths we take. So we could end up being two people helping eachother and teaming up to do things together, or we could end up being total oposites and hating eachother :P

Its like having yourself from another universe/dimension/timeline.

So, even though we share the same DNA and are the same possible person, in the legal department I would say to just make some kind of difference, since as you said.. it has his/her own decitions, there for its accountable for their own achivements and mistakes.

Now.. the real thing that made me go over and over for some time.. would it be considered a son/daughter of your parents... hehe.. now THIS is a trick question...

Theory says it contains the same DNA from your parents, all familly, etc.. since it is "you".. (so up to this part you could say it is their child) but.. it wasn't really conceived by them.. but by other means... (which at this point says it is not their child).. but since it was taken from your own DNA... is like growing another hair, or piece of skin of you.. so it is like you separated a piece of you.. (so we are back again at it could be their child.. or part of it... hehehe don't you like my train of thoughts?? :P)..

Anyway... the TL:DR ... I would consider it as myself. and equal.. not exactly family.

If you want to talk more about this.. just let me know... these kind of talks make me happy ^^

Take care Ado ^^

"It's a ME, the other Mario"

That's a statement I'd DIE to hear from anyone, in a family COURT.
And totally upload to Youtube, for the years to come.

It's funny how the most LOGICAL option "It's just another me" is the sanest option I can think of as well. Yet, the most difficult one to process in the legal department.

As nowadays, everything must "belong" to something else in order to fit in standards and hurt no "unprepared" social circles.
Especially now where DNA seems to be proof for over 50% of investigation or prosecution activities.

To have "rogue" members of shared DNA codes without any social or legal relation to established family lines, is something that will undermine our current law code.

And yet, as you say. The answer is as simple as "a ME".

Well I do suppose that we'd be pretty good friends! We'd both have the same genes, so we'd probably be able to get along, know what makes us tick, tend towards the same social habits etc, and they'd we'd be working at life with the power of TWO ;<D !

Of course, biological development involves environment as well as genes, and, depending on whether I am replicated right now, or when I was born, or somehwere in the middle, his experiences would probably turn out to be different than mine! And then, well, I suppose he'd be just another friend living his different life!

This is all a relatively naive first impression, though...

Naive and sweet, man!

It has a valid argument, still.

"My identical human replica is just ANOTHER FRIEND, living his/her own life"

No strings attached.

I was going to say the whole "Brother" thing, as thats what sprang to mind first. But you bring up a good point about them being a son, as they ARE derived from your own DNA.

Oddly enough, I think age would also play into it. If the clone was aged to a point that they're the same age as you, I'd think of it as a twin. But if they were an infant, I'd think of it as a younger brother or son. It would also be up to the clone as well. Saying that they're not a real human being would just be unfair. The clone still thinks like you, so you'd have to ask yourself what YOU would say if you were told you weren't a real human being.

One of the basic ideas behind being a human being is the ability to think, react and voice our opinions while following our own choices. A clone would be able to do the same thing.

The thought process behind the clone would also be called into question. If you were a couple obsessed with wanting children and wanted a child, the clone would be a son/daughter. If it were someone just wanting a brother or sister, well, it'd be that.
A human (I don't think, anyway) can't be made without some sort of egg and or sperm. So, they'd still technically be human. I've seen a few of the ideas behind cloning, and nearly always a dreg of your own DNA along with an incubation (an egg or ovary, even if its an artificial one) is needed.

So... I'd just have to say that... I would think of the clone as a brother. While the clone would probably rebel against the idea of being family. But I also think the clone would desperately want to be with that family too. Its how I would think, and its still me, just in an identical body :)

P.S I just had to reply to this as I just bought "The 6th Day" from a store in my town. I thought it was pretty ironic and funny that a journal would be made on it the night after, heh.

Wow, talk about rambling.

I'm tempted to take the Brother/Twin option.

At first, since that person is directly derived from your own genetic code, one would think of an offspring and thus,a son. After all, some species just create direct clones of themselves, but looking at the sexual reproduction of most of them and the human standards, I can't consider it a son unless your DNA is mixed with someone else's.

Let's say: Twins happen when a replicating embryo in the first phases split and both of them keep growing as an independent being from the first one, the base. The second cell mass is in fact an offspring from the first, original one. But no one considers that a son, but a twin copy and brother of the first one.

The clone is essentially you, but instead of being a part of you, it's an existence apart from you. You are the same (genetically), yet different people.

Soooooo I'll go for brother.

"I can't consider it a son unless your DNA is mixed with someone else's."

Very wise.


As for "I'll go for brother"

We'll see.

On that matter, I'll quote a french author, Roland C. Wagner that use the term 'More-than-Brother/Sister" to describe the clones of an individual. I like the terminology, as the clones are identical genetically speaking, but may have different tastes and personnalities, due to differences in environment and education. As may happen with twins.

I rather like this term, as it describes a family tie of some sort, but also implies that these individuals are, well, individuals. They are carbon copy only on the genetic level. Heck, it's almost certain they'll get different fingerprints.

"More-than-Brother/Sister"

That's impeccably romantic.

Not sure what you mean by that. ^^;

Maybe more an opponent ? An exact copy of yourself, maybe and potentially better than yourself trying to overcast you ? No way ! I would try to learn more about him, then if he's clever than me, I would do something... well... replica dies by cancer most of the time xD

Well, we're fixing Cancer, are we not?

Just a matter of time.

Well If I did made a Clone,
I mean I wouldn't make it a relative of mine
but just an experiment of mine to see what would be like If It was
more aggressive

Or just make it miserable as much as possible as I was have a twisted fate.

Or make a clone and make it something for myself
with reasons even though it'll think and rebel on it's own in time
in time.

But even to love it might considerate as incest but it might prefer
women, or both finding with the same taste or not
it all the answers to find out.

The fact I have someone just like me, even a doppelganger, doesn't mean he'll have the same Psyche as myself. DNA is everything but someone's mind/soul. In that case, depending of his personality, it could be a great friend, but in the end, it's more of a indifference, I'm just another human being in the world, we'll be just another one as well.

Very good!

Let's expand a bit, shall we?

If you had your government (ergo, the population of your country, or world, supporting it) telling you that you have indeed "BONDS" and "Obligations" to "replica" of you.

Just because of "foreseen problems" with DNA mismanagement, as a control measure on legal matters.

What would you say?

So, does he have the same age as I do? Is he causing trouble because he knows about me and uses that to get rid of his troubles?
If no, so there are a lot of ways to proof my identity as a citizen if I'm being wronged about something. Vivid memories, alibis testimonials and such could cooperate in my favor.
If yes, I'd take responsibility for his acts, even if it means I need to die because of his actions.
In both cases, I guess the will to know him or actually talk to him would raise on me, but only because I was the chosen one to have a clone. Something like this might have an interesting story behind.

There is no point of cloning a human being, but it would proof by scientific ways that the brain ins't the same as the mind and/or the soul, but again, there is no point of doing it.

If we decide to clone a child in the moment of the birth, the clone could be raised together as a twin, both would have almost the same age. Again, what would be the point of it? To cause psychological problems with them?

In a philosophical way, that's already happening. We are not original after all, we are copies of something called "society". We don't know why we are here or what's the meaning of it all. Even so, we are here, living each day suffering, smiling, running, drawing, crying, laughing,etc, in a world we are still trying to comprehend.

Well I have twin sons so if I had a clone of myself of the same age I'd treat him as a twin because there is very little difference, genetically speaking, between twins by birth and same age clones. That and to be fair with my sons.

But if say I was given an infant who happens to be a perfect clone (from a guvmint conspiracy or etc) he would be treated as a son.

You have TWINS?

When did THAT happen?

Ah two years ago. The arrival wasnt a very happy one unfortunately.

I hope my answer wasnt misunderstood. I can answer in a note if you need an explanation.

I'm sorry things didn't went as expected, but nonetheless, I congratulate you for your beloved new pair.

So, how did it happen?
I must say it was quite a surprise comment.

Maybe a blend of both sibling and offspring? *shrugs* Of course, we must consider what makes a clone a clone. If we're talking about simply a duplication of DNA, then can we say 'twin', seeing that the other will be living his own life and his own memories? Now, if we were to duplicate everything in someone, including memory and personality, can we truly consider him a 'clone'?

(On a side note, one can make a 'twin' and create a new set of memories and whatnot into it, but that is off tangent from what you asked originally)

You touch a very, VERY SENSITIVE SPOT sir.

We're all familiar with DNA replication. And we're trying to cope with it before it actually happens.
One of the few "hope-renewing" events this species has, IMO.

But, PSYCHE-REPLICATION.
Personality-Clones.

That, is a most disturbing concept.

Would you add more to this?

I'm reminded of the webcomic Girl Genius, when the main protagonist gets zapped with a stored personality of her mother. Later on in the comic, we see that she has been doing that for a while.

Of course, the thing would be HIGHLY unethical. It might be even considered murder, as in the murder of the person you imprinted the mind to. Of course, you could easily clone mind into several machines (androids?) and have them go on as you wish. Hm.

Psyche replacement = Murder, in all of it's form.

After all, the prior "person" is overwritten by the new one.

And even "addition" of foreign personality without the complete replacement of psyche, is still a crime to be penalized. As it violates the last vestige of "Sanctity", we all humans like to believe we possess.

That untouchable bit of "YOU" that is worth everything, anyone lives for.

I don't see anyone being OK with something like that to be allowed.
Thought I think it has a interesting matisse to it.

Would you agree?

Of course.

Now, a bit off-tangent: Is it ethical for you to clone someone else, then to duplicate your mind onto that?

Totally unethical.

Should it have a memory compilation by years experience, or simply BLANK from birth, but still with a potential personally, makes little difference.

Do you agree?

Maybe. What if someone, at the end of his life, wants to continue himself onward, takes random DNA from people to make clone, then imprints his entire life onto that blank. Would that be unethical? Even if said DNA could be from long-dead sources?

Should it a "ready-to-implant" bio-product.
It also means that it can develop a personality of it's own, just like a baby.

Thought the "no data" bit seems like a juicy offer to take.

You yet again, touch a very, VERY sensitive spot there.
Makes me wanna turn it into a new poll.

If you do, just say where you got the inspiration from. .D

well, since a clone shares the person's DNA, albeit recombined in whichever way or not, and therefore follows your genealogy and ancestry... i'd consider them a brother/sister!

You do that by WILL, no string attached. Yes?

There's a certain "contract" that you sign in your head when you accept these things.

well, yes, i'd consider them family, because i want to. i would try to care for them like i would any family member, but, also like any family member in my case, if they started being a jackass, i'd either try to set them straight or otherwise simply not associate with them.

I'd see her as a sister or daughter. And I'd be very protective over her. I would want her to be treated just like a human, nothing less than that. I've seen The Island (I think it was called that) and it really appalled me on how they treated clones.

It would be it's own person, DNA aside. As such, I'd probably think of either daughter or sister. (Or brother son of the clone came out male, but if it's an exact copy of my DNA it'd probably be female like me)

Have you ever wondered about the relation (and awkwardness) of gender split twins?

Guy / Girl twins.

What in the world could possibly go on between those 2, since they are so similar and yet, opposite from the gender root.

Oh man! I think a whole SitCom would spawn from that idea.

That depends on how you view it. The clone is it's own individual person who just happens to have the same DNA. It can end up not even looking like you, due to epi-genetics. Evolution has made DNA use a complex thing and despite appearances we have no real control in its' application. During the cloning process histones and methylation will change. Resulting in different genes being on and off than what would have likely happened naturally. Look at the first cloned cat for example different coat color than the cat it was cloned from. Also, unless someone thinks of a way to basically add telomerse back onto the DNA before the cloning process the clone will experience health problems that you may never experience or only experience in old age. So you could view them as something barely connected to you just with similair gene expression (maybe like a cousin or maybe no connection at all). Though if you went in cloning to get a child you would view them as an offspring and could argue DNA makes them follow the family line. You really could argue it a few ways, it depends on if you knew you were being cloned and what you wanted out of it.

You speak the truth, and you seem a very smart person.

Ergo, I must HAMMER YOU with this question.

"If an IH replica (clone) has NO LEGAL RELATION or OBLIGATION to it's original model"

What can you think to counter the MESS that unleashes over "Heritage" and "Bloodlines" and "Ancestry"?

Since DNA alone will no longer be proof to claim yourself as "part of" any family, inheritance, rights or powers.

I know it's a VAST and MEAN question. But I'm intrigued at your point of view.
Should you like to share it.

DNA being used as proof of certain family lines is a recent thing and most laws are geared towards other methods of identifying lineage. So again, I think it would depend on the person. If again you did the cloning to get a child you would treat them as a child and that would be their family. If you considered them to not be connected to you at all than it would be more like a sperm donation or orphan situation. If someone dontates genetic material through the proper channels to someone else for them to use to make a child (or in this case clone) they are under no legal obligations for that child and they are not legally considered part of my family. If you did not just donate the genetic material but where instead involved in the cloning process and still do not conider them connected to you than I guess it would be more of an orphan thing. When someone gives a child up for adoption, that child is no longer considered part of that family instead they are a ward of the state until they legally becomes part of whatever family adopts them.

I'd see it not as a family member, but as someone you know. Even if it was another person exactly like you dna wise it could experience things differently and soon grow a different personality and different principles and beliefs.

You could sya it would be yourself as a entirely new person or stuck in a "What if?" scenerio. Either way i wouldnt see it as family but as another person who is running around with my face. If they stuck around an shared some experiences then maybe we might bond to being closer but i wouldnt think anything of it normally. Would just be weird to see myself walk around.

Now if it tried to take over my life... Shits fucking going down. >:C
Fucking eshwars..

Shush yo' Tush Misseh.

We know you're into the Mir Luv-Tub. :3

And I agree.
Not even "DNA identicality" issues can justify having any human replica to try and take over someone else's life.

Not even the other way around, where the "replica" gains a better life situation, and the original model
tries to impersonate, or take over his/her life in a disgraceful way.

No need to be violent though :P

This question can't really be adequately answered due to the fact that everything surrounding the situation is highly circumstantial.

Who made the clone? Why? When? How old is it? Questions like this are only the start of the specifics behind something like that. And a DNA connection doesn't mean they're going to be identical to you in very many ways. The effect that upbringing has on a person is tremendous.

My relationship to that replica would be exactly what it was, a clone. Cloning transcends biological heredity orders, hence why the term 'clone' is sufficient.

Then I will semantically ask:

a) What does "WHO MADE IT" bring to the situation?

a) What does "WHY MAKE IT" bring to the situation?

a) What does "WHEN WAS IT MADE" bring to the situation?

a) What does "HOW OLD IS IT" bring to the situation?


And yes, I agree.
The term "CLONE" is just a gimmick. Identical Human Replication involves much more complex concepts and possibilities than just the "C word".

depending on the age, platonic whatever you decide to use as relation.

I'd go for the last solution and spare me the headache. :p

*spared

This is a very interesting topic! How to go about answering your questions I have no idea. But I will try to give you a proper analysis.


First off a clone a genetic replica born not by you conceiving sexually between another person and yourself. Yet it still carries who you are, but may end up a totally different person do to brain development . For example you yourself could be a nice out going person , while this clone could become socially retarded , slow , and maybe even aggressive. But , then again maybe not, maybe the genes won't develop differently.

Who, knows because I don't think anyone ever even really took the time to think about it. I would consider the clone to be a parallel me, another person born from my dna but threw another method. Its me but I wouldn't consider it family unless it treated me like a family member.

And if we became sexually attracted to one another , I don't think it would be incest. Yes its born from your dna but its you, its like masturbating yourself. So having sex with it I really don't see a problem.


Anyway I hope that helps you Ado. This kind of thing I like giving feedback on I don't know why. just gives me a thrill.

Genetically speaking, the clone is your younger twin. So the "ick ick ick" reflex goes kicking full force.
Now, having a rule 34 of the star wars troopers, well... that's up to you.

Nobody wants to have the face of a Storm Trooper.
Ergo they ICK out at eachother.
I'd kill myself if I had that face .P

Its not only the face... its the smell, the voice, the skin. Biology isn't very crazy about sameness in a sexual species.

Why couldn't they clone, lessay. Ryan Reynolds.

Hot bodied, Witty tongued and Goofy looking.

Have an army of that.

Oooh, they'd just bitch on the target as they pushed on. ~
I can SEE IT!

Replicas... they aren't me. They're not related to me, but they are me. Just not part of my family. They don't share my memories, they don't share my fondness for the same things. They weren't with me when I was born. So what could I consider it? Another person.

Depends on how you interact with your Replica. What would be the circumstances?

Often thought about it in Tales of the Abyss. Luke and Asch interact with each other as enemies. They're the same person, but they act, independently, and hate each other. Being faced with yourself probably brings around things you wouldn't like.

It seems the common trend is either "a familiar looking STRANGER" or "a possible Sex Toy/Hand".

I think I take your option, personally.

Question: What would you do if suddenly, there is a LAW that prevents "replicating" or "cloning" in order to "preserve" established family bloodlines?

As DNA test would no longer serve as LEGAL PROOF for most processes?

That would be fine. A family that bows out their line of existence is a graceful thing. Sad, but graceful.

What good does a Replica serve if it is merely a Replica only for that purpose? Truly, any family line that resorts to this immoral act, is no longer worthy of their name.

It also spares a family a lot of anger that stems from taking one's place inside a family lineage. There's a lot more controversy than just preserving a family name. It's who even becomes the rightful heir. Who becomes the patriarch. Who is your real sister? Brother? Uncle?

One who practices one such thing, would even forget their family's reason for existing, other than preserving their name.

That also being the case... The question is then posed... "What does it mean to be a family, when Replicas are so common?"

So much TOUCHE~ in your replies.

Does replicating obsolete breeding?
Does breeding bring something else that cloning doesn't?
Should they fight for the preferred method of reproduction?
Will they be just options?

It's THIS kind of questions I'd like to be answered.
In this case, what's YOUR preference?

Replicating brings nothing to a new lineage. Breeding brings in new, and possibly more powerful genes, when selecting two people to wed, and bear children. Truthfully, it is any person's own right to do as they will with their method of reproduction, but replication is not reproduction. At least, not in my eyes.

I prefer to either preserve a name through actual love, and blood. Or to adopt in, if the selected child is strong enough.

Then you say, that there is no "absolute value" to a human replica.
But the one another person gives it?

The adopting bit tells that.

At the core of it. Yes.

It really depends on my experiences with him, if he was born as a baby and I raised him, it would be a father/son kind of deal.
If he was grown to adulthood and a copy of my mind was put in it, it would be like a twin.

Personally I think the father/son deal would be better in the long run for everyone, let him develop his own personality based off of his own experiences and memories.

Just like Madonna cloned herself and added UNIBROW?
That can be a thrill~

YOU WANT THAT UNIBROW!

Manifest and admit it!

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/7573360/

This...

The really sad bit is this is THE most advanced thing I've ever done artistically. Dynamic shading, non generic expression, body language, body hair. I've never done something this detailed before.

While my clone may have my DNA it doesn't make them an exact copy of me. All my memories, feelings and experiences are unique to myself and no kind of DNA replication that we know of (at least thus far) would be able to copy them for I believe that they're not connected to DNA at all. And even if they somehow did end up with the same memories, feelings and experiences, my clone would most likely deal with them differently than I do (especially if they realize that they are my clone) So while they may physically look like me, I would consider that they are another person entirely.

I don't know if there would be a relation right at the start but if I KNEW that they were replicated from me then I feel there would at least be some sort of a connection. In order for a relation to develop it would depend on both my actions and that of my clone. If we resent the other for whatever reason then our relation will develop to that of enemies. If we get along and decide to learn from each other then a friendship may form, the farthest extent probably being brothers. That being said, this is something that has ultimately is formed between my clone and I. Other people can't force it upon either of us but they can certainly help or hurt the development and/or the standing of a relation.

To tell you the truth, I feel that I would treat this "other me" as another part of myself. I've always thought a conversion with myself would be quite enthralling... I know that sounds a bit vain, but seriously, wouldn't it be neat to have a serious conversation with yourself with your thoughts and replies truly based on an outside point of view?

Now, as far as labeling is concerned, I believe that there really has not been a definite term to truly describe or define that sort of sim-biotic like relationship. Plus, I don't even know if the fabric of reality would allow this kind of duplicity to work.... It's just kind of hard for me to grasp the fact that two of the exact same being could be on the same place at the same time...

Sorry, I'm kind of intertwining this question with the "Multi-verse" Theory....

Sorry Ado if I take this opportunity to grab and spin a bit your journal and comments, but I do love this kind of talks and enjoy the ideas that come out of them.

I'll try to make this brief since it is like 3:30 AM and I should go to work really soon and haven't sleep yet :P

Taking a bit aside the how your clone ends up in existance and placing a more specific scenario. Say like... you could manage to not clone your DNA per se, but clone the time line itself in a particular moment and spot and surgically inserting that spot of time into this same time line, making a perfect copy of you at this precise moment. Meaning DNA, thoughts, memories, experiences, everything.. basically another exact you at this second.

I present my questions and thoughts...

- How would you feel towards this clone of yourself?
- How would society work around him/her?
- Since you and the clone know about eachother existance.. would you or the clone change their choices so you can regain individuality towards the other?
- Regarding your concern about legal matters... Would you be responsible for your clone actions when they act wrongfuly since such act comes from a choice you could have done yourself even though you didn't took such choice yourself?
- Since no DNA test can tell you apart, nor a psychiatric test might be enough.. hou could "originality" of yourself be proved.
- Even if there is a way to determine who is the clone or the original.. even based upon right and wrong acts.. who can decide which one should be rightfully part of the family/bloodline and not the other one? Is that even a moral thing to do?


I could explain these a bit more later if interested... right now I have many ideas floating over my head since I looooove debating ideas on my mind regarding the good and evil that lies inside in each of us and the possibility of both happening at the same time from two different expresions of oneself.

Anyway.. it is late... take care Ado... see ya later... let me know if this subject is even apealing to you ^^

Bye.

I reallly don't know how to think about having a twin, but I do have an older brother. We kinda look alike.

But really, I think I'd freak out, then try a lot of stuff with my twin, it'd be kinda interesting, honestly.

here is my thought about it,

it's a clone so he can grow anyway, developing his mind on his own, so i guess he would be a Lyanor 2.0. he would be a unique person since he would have his own personality and would have his own choices to make, so definitively not brother or family. i think i would see him as a rival as to who makes most of his life and maybe i'd try to make his life better than mine to see what a me with out all the troubles i have been through.

so basically i would see him either as a second chance at having a better existence, or a rival that i need to be better than... all depending on what happens.

A clone doesn't re-create your memories, skills, and experiences. And if it has your allergies, physical disabilities, genetic diseases (diabetes etc.), then why create it? You're just doubling the amount of suffering and life support needed by a being, creating an exact replica of them. The point is to correct the small errors in DNA sequences, in-vitro development, nourishment and maturation, nutrition and environment, so you have something without the deformities, mental problems, hang-ups, physical maladies, bad habits, disabilities, etc., that the original has.

So the clone would be a better, superior, physically fit, raised right version of me. Someone that if it were possible and legal, I'd like to brain-swap with, trapping it in this overweight, diseased body so it had a fast track to death. And don't you just know this is what very rich people would do with them in order to have practical immortality!

Of course, why swap? Why not just erase its personality and put a new one into the brain if that's easier? So what if that kills the clone's personality when that is not given any value or acknowledged as anything human? In fact, if you DID swap it back, you'd be elevating it to human status - way too dangerous, and setting yourself up for revenge acts.

So they'd be medical waste, non-people, legally. Slaves, working in factories - fighting our wars for us. Any dangerous or medial labor we want to exploit in order to oil the machinery of capitalism and get the economy working again. See also: Blade Runner (Film), The Island (Film), and various stories by Heinlein, Ellison, et al.

"And if it has your allergies, physical disabilities, genetic diseases (diabetes etc.), then why create it"

Same thing applies:

"Why do we even have children by breeding. If our flawed codes, live ON in our children?"

Our heritage morals is a touchy subject. Because it has been ABSOLUTE till today.

And yes, what I do agree to, is about how "those with the means" would farm, save up vessels for migration.

Question is:

Is it considered "MORAL" or "OK" to "Swap" into a body that is "personality-able".
And destroy the "possible psyche" it could have if allowed to learn. Just because it's "currently blank".

Or is it not?

If the clone is human, a conscious person, capable of living a human life same as if it had been born, of course it is not moral to create a sentient slave race abused so cruelly.

So (see the film The Island), you should never let the clones wake up, stay in a pre-birth state despite developing and maturing into an adult physique. Perpetually in a synthetic womb.

Then it is more morally grey. Life for many belief systems starts after birth. It never learned anything. It has no personality above that of a goldfish. harvesting, mindswapping into it at least seems like a plot for a Phillip K Dick novel. It soumds conceivably acceptable.

. . . . .

Identical Twin. Without question.