= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Welcome to Heaven - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (242)
Absolutely, which is why I specified short-lived above.
Though it's very hard to know how I would face the prospect of being deleted and replaced with a twenty-minute-old backup in real life!
I may be answering an un-asked question, since I haven't been following this conversation, but the following solution to the issue of clones occurs to me:
Leave it up to the clone.
Make suicide fully legal and easily available (possibly 'suicide of any copy of a person in cases where more than one copy exists', though that could allow twins greater leeway depending on how you define 'person' - perhaps also add a time limit: the split must have occurred within N years). When a clone is created, it's automatically given the rights to 1/2 of the original's wealth. If the clone suicides, the original 'inherits' the wealth back. If the clone decides not to suicide, it automatically keeps the wealth that it has the rights to.
Given that a clone is functionally the same person as the original, this should be an ethical solution (assuming that you consider suicide ethical at all) - someone would have to be very sure that they'd be able to go through with suicide, or very comfortable with the idea of splitting their wealth in half, in order to be willing to take the risk of creating a clone. The only problem that I see is with unsplittable things like careers and relationships. (Flip a coin? Let the other people involved decide?)
This seems like a good solution. If I cloned myself, I'd want it to be established beforehand which copy would stay around, and which copy would go away. For instance, if you're going to make a copy that goes to watch a movie to see if the movie is worth your time, the copy that watches the movie should go away, because if it's good the surviving version of yourself will watch it anyway.
I (and thus my clones) don't see it as suicide, more like amnesia, so we'd have no problem going through with it if the benefit outweighed the amnesia.
If you keep the clone around, in terms of splitting their wealth, both clones can work and make money, so you should get about twice the income for less than twice the expenses (you could share some things). In terms of relationships, you could always bring the clones into a relationship. A four way relationship, made up of two copies of each original person, might be interesting.
Hmm... *Imagines such a relationship with significant other.* Holy hell that would be weird. The amount of puzzling scenarios I can think of just by sitting here is extravagant. Does anyone know of a decent novel based on this premise?
I don't think those kinds of situations will need to be spelled out in advance, actually. Coming up with a plan that's acceptable to both versions of yourself before going through with the cloning should be about as easy as coming up with a plan that's acceptable to just one version, once you're using the right kind of framework to think about it. (You should be about equally willing to take either role, in other words, otherwise your clone is likely to rebel, and since they're considered independent from the get-go (and not bound by any contracts they didn't sign, I assume), there's not much you can do about that.)
Setting up four-way relationships would definitely be interesting. Another scenario that I like is one where you make a clone to pursue an alternate life-path that you suspect might be better but think is too risky - after a year (or whatever), whichever of you is less happy could suicide and give their wealth to the other one, or both could decide that their respective paths are good and continue with half-wealth.
The more I think about this, the more I want to make a bunch of clones of myself. I don't even see why I'd need to destroy them. I shouldn't have to pay for them; they can get their own jobs, so wealth isn't that much of a concern.
The concern is that immediately after you clone, both copies agree that Copy 1 should live and Copy 2 should die, but afterwards, Copy 2 doesn't want to lose those experiences. If you decide beforehand that you only want one of you around, and Copy 2 is created specifically to be destroyed, there should be a way to bind Copy 2 to suicide.
Disagree. I would class that as murder, not suicide, and consider creating a clone who would be subject to such binding to be unethical.
Calling it murder seems extreme, since you end up surviving. What's the difference between binding a copy to suicide and binding yourself to take a sleep-amnesia pill?
If it's not utterly voluntary when committed, I don't class it as suicide. (I also consider 'driving someone to suicide' to actually be murder.)
My solution to resolving the ethical dilemma is, to reword it, to give the clone full human rights from the moment it's created (actually a slightly expanded version of current human rights, since we're currently prohibited from suiciding). I assume that it's not currently possible to enforce a contract that will directly cause one party's death; that aspect of inter-human interaction should remain. The wealth-split serves as a balance in two ways: Suddenly having your wealth halved would be traumatic for almost anyone, which gives a clone that had planned to suicide extra impetus to do so, and also should strongly discourage people from taking unnecessary risks when making clones. In other words, that's not a bug, it's a feature.
The difference between what you proposed and the sleeping pill scenario is that in the latter, there's never a situation where an individual is deprived of rights.
I'm still unclear why you classify it as death at all. You end up surviving it.
I think you're thinking of a each copy as an individual. I'm thinking of the copies collectively as a tool used by an individual.
Ok, say you enter into a binding agreement forcing yourself to take a sleeping pill tomorrow. You have someone there to enforce it if necessary. The next day, you change your mind, and the person forces you to take the pill anyway. Have you been deprived of rights? (If it helps, substitute eating dessert, or gambling, or doing heroin for taking the pill.)
Yes, I am, and as far as I can tell mine's the accurate model. Each copy is separately alive and conscious; they should no more be treated as the same individual than twins are treated as the same individual. (Otherwise, why is there any ethical question at all?)
This kind of question comes up every so often here, and I still haven't heard or thought of an answer that satisfies me. I don't see it as relevant here, though, because I do recognize the clone as a separate individual who shouldn't be coerced.
I don't think any such agreement could be legally binding under current law, which is relevant since we're talking about rights.
I imagine it would be much like a case of amnesia, only with less disorientation.
Edit: Wait, I'm looking at the wrong half. One moment.
Edit: I suppose it would depend on the circumstances - "fear" is an obvious one, although mitigated to an extent by knowing that I would not be leaving a hole behind me (no grieving relatives, etc.).