Hblair, the meaning of St is a compilers nightmare - an ambiguous one. For some, it's Saint. The chaps in my squad are convinced its short for Satan, though. I'm not presumptous enough to think I'm a fallen angel - or any angel for that matter. But I am so important that at least I should be a saint.
Miko wrote:
That's the whole intent of an exercise. I would not want a child to be a duplicate me, I would want him to be a better, more accomplished me.
Even with a clone, there's no guarantee that this will happen. Perhps it is the very hardships and traumas you've went through who has formed the essence of you. You've probably experienced things you'll do what you can to make sure your son won't. Would it not be enough for you to have a son that was happy - regardless of how accomplished he is? Must he better you for you to be satisfied? From what I know of you from this board, I know the answer is 'no', and that you're just making a logical case for cloning. Still, cloning doesn't give you any guarantees - it might increase your chances, but e do not have the empirical basis for saying how much.
"for example" is inapplicable here. I would not be cloning some random person of who's circumstances I would know nothing about.
No, but if the kids grow up under different conditions than you, he'll probably not be like you. The environment in which you grow up has a huge say in what you become. It's no accident that children of poor families with uneducated parents have a lower education (in general) than kids from the middle class.
I do not see how you've addressed the regression to the mean here - unless you intend to have 6-7 children to increase a chance of one being as smart as you are. ]/b]
If my partner has an equal intelligence, chances are my kid will be on par. Or higher or lower within a certain limit. It won't be a stupid child whichever way it goes.
Which are exactly known. I would not be cloning someone else and than letting him develop randomly. I doubt anyone would.
They are known, but *different* from the conditions that were there when you grew up. Different conditions make for different personalities. Take a child and let it have no contact with humans and it'll end up with horrible mental problems. Make contact more random, add violence etc, and another personality will be the result. And so on. The conditions you will raise the kid in will be dissimilar to the ones you yourself was raised in, which will give your kid a different personality. Of course you could coach and brainwash the kid to be your mirror image but chances are that'll lead to deep divisions within him that'll manifest themselves sooner or later in life.
You are talking as if a presence of an educator with special knowlege is no better than random influence. That is self-contradictory. You can reject nature or nurture but not both. My position actually relies on both but would work with either.
I reject neither. I'm simply trying to make a point about the nurture bit. When conditions vary, so does the result.
What I actually propose is based on large role I attribute to of nature plus the best individually tailor-made nurture.
And still he might not be like you. He might surpass you, but I believe he'll develop a unique personality somewhat different from yours.
Of course maybe this is a moot point. Maybe I should understand it as you wanting a person that was similar to you but surpassed you. On the other hand, a naturally produced son or daughter could also do that.
Do you have kids already?
