Could use some more clarity. The basic claim seems to be that we are valuable similar to how Shakespeare's handwritten Hamlet is valuable, but that it's better for an apprentice's copy of Hamlet to exist than none at all. Which I would agree with. But there seems to be a lot of unnecessary defining and pumping intuition hither and thither, without tackling the meaty stuff. The concept of assigning utilities may be helpful to map out this "not only valuing the original, but not treating copies as equally valuable" typical human fuzzy definition.

Also:

3.3 Against somaticism: practical ethics

Gaah, motivated stopping.