Accepted that true genius requires some freaky combination of genes and landing in fertile soil in which that seed can bloom. And that human culture as a whole has benefitted greatly from these once in a generation or two ubergeniuses – be they of the Newton/Einstein sort, or in the arts.
Human cloning (let’s stick with homo sapiens sapiens here) is an ethically murky area for many. Some of course see no issue with it whatsoever. Those people are excused from this thread; discussing when cloning might be okay to those who have an issue with it is more my question here.
Would it be in society’s best interest to clone a few dozen past geniuses each generation giving them the most fertile soil to grow in imaginable? Not available as designer babies to the highest bidder but raised by volunteer parents who would qualify on the basis of demonstrated capacity as excellent parents first and foremost, and as individuals capable of nurturing the specific sort of genius as a secondary consideration … Not so many that gene concentration becomes a serious concern …
Assume also that we have cloning of other primate species down to such a degree that we are confident that a human clone has no untoward health risk and is assured of complete human rights and protections (and of course of legal responsibilities).
I would have no problem supporting the cloning of long dead peoples. I think where it gets tricky is if I want to clone your daughter by harvesting some of her cells from a restaurant setting where your family ate last night.
I’m not sure where you put the statute of limitations, if you will, on this, but it should probably be on the order of 100 years or so. In your scenario I say “Bach yes, but Einstein, no”. At least not yet.
I can decide that the op is not asking about your thoughts. Of course you can decide if you want to threadshit and discuss something other than the op. You have the power to do that.
There is a huge problem with the “most fertile” item, IIRC Einstein showed in early life a lot of intelligence in music and math, but on many other subjects he had trouble, so much so that it is very likely that his school life was hell.
IMHO there is an element of adversity that genius needs to grow up properly. The overall point here is that just as one can not step again in the same river, the conditions will never be the same for the cloned ones to develop just the same as the original ones.
The movie “The Boys from Brazil” sort of explored this (especially with trying to create the conditions that allowed the supposed “genius” to come about), but in reverse.
I’m not skeeved out by cloning on general principle, short of creating clone armies. I hope this doesn’t disqualify me.
To me, the person being created is not Einstein; it’s just a person using an apparatus similar to the one that the original used. In my opinion, it’s as unethical as recreating the Taj Mahal by following the same blueprint. So I don’t think there’s anything god-awful about the idea as long as the resulting individuals are held up to no expectation of special greatness. That is to say, if there was a way to do it so that they wouldn’t have any idea who they were cloned from and they allowed to develop in their own way, just like any other child. Optimally, not even the parents would know that they’ve got a genius.
But this isn’t the case in the scenario, so I would be against it. Not enough to protest in the streets, but I would write a letter to the editor somewhere.
Seems to me it is unethical to withhold this information from the cloned individual. Why would it be so terrible to know? No one is forcing anyone to be Einstein or Bach. Children of famous or very talented parents face similar “obstacles” in life.
Defining fertile ground is indeed a difficult bit. My sense is that these particular outliers are more a product of their intrinsic nature than a reaction to adversity or to particular sparks that lit their fires. Fertile enough I think is all that is required. My guess is that a dozen or so Einsteins growing up exposed to decent enough broad educations, a culture of critical thinking (not required that be i the school, in Einsteins case it certainly was not, hence his problems in early grades), the opportunities to have their gifts nurtured in whichever direction they seem to want to go, and some decent family support systems … would have pretty good odds of being of benefit to society.
Option: the parents have no knowledge of what sort of and how far out of a genius the child is the clone of. They’d be no different than many other parents who are sure their kids are the next Einstein! I could see that having an expectation of greatness could set one up for depression or at least sadness and disappointment is you fail to achieve anything great or turn out to have the skill but not the drive for whatever reason. But that is good parenting, to instill unconditional love and the freedom to fail.
Would it be the most terrible thing to happen to a person? No. But already people’s psyches are whupped by constant comparisons to siblings and parents. It already sucks being the dorky one in a family full of suave athletes, or having teachers yell at you for not “living up to your potential” simply because you’ve got all the obvious ingredients of success behind you, but you can’t seem to get it together.
Imagine if that potential isn’t “imagined”. Everyone knows Einstein was a mathematical genius, so why are you still struggling over your ones, tens, and hundreds? Everyone knows Einstein was a peaceful dude, so why are you so belligerent and aggressive? Everyone knows Einstein could play the violin, so why are you being so rebellious by playing the drums? Why are you addicted to porn and message boards? Einstein wasn’t!!
I can’t help but to think being a twin makes me sensitive to this just a little.
J.T. McIntosh wrote a science fiction story with somewhat of the same dilemma, back in 1960. The story was “Immortality…For Some.” In the story, people of great genius were given rejuvenation treatments late in life, so they could live a completely new life from a new infancy. They did not remember anything from their earlier lives and careers. The idea was that “genius” was inherent in individuals, and people who had contributed to society were more likely to do so again.
My opinion? Nuh-uh. The new Einstein or Bach is just as likely as any other kid to get messed up with drugs, or get caught up in a cult, or decide to spend all his time playing video games, or simply sleep through class. As the brokerage houses always say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
As noted above, the moral issue of heaping gigantic expectations on the kid is also very disturbing. It undermines their freedom. The comparison to children of famous people is also uncomfortable.
Bach kept trying to do it without modern cloning technology, and did prettywell.
ETA: But those examples, as well as his several other children who became composers and prominent musicians, are probably more of Nurture than Nature. It was, after all, the family business.
As I remember the story Leonardo da Vinci’s friends actually tried to have him cloned shortly after he died. Well no as such of course, but they took one from his immediate family and tried to give him the same upbringing. He did show some promising signs, but sadly the plague cut him down in his early youth.
I’m certain in the future they’ll dig up DNA traces of every great man from Egyptian faros to Napoleon and Djengis Khan and Hitler and Stalin and have them cloned. Why not Bach also. I’m certain the neo-Back will be a disappointment.