spudit on May 26, 2011, 01:56:56 pm
Dunno about you guys but I have one ugly family. But, are there any wee snippets of Audrey Hepburn around. A single hair might do.

Honest, I'll take real good care of her, clean her cage and everything.

Oink.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

J Thomas on May 26, 2011, 02:37:48 pm
Well, but Sam is postulating a method to quickly create a clone with a second X chromosome, that is physically adult but has no experience whatsoever -- basicly a baby in an adult body.

If the pheromone rejection issue is mostly on the female side (and that's the side that the experiments I've heard of indicated), then likely a lot of the guys who'd come up with the idea wouldn't care if she objected.

First, men do perceive pheromones.

Sure, and some men might find their own clone attractive anyway. Hardly any men require alien pheromones to masturbate, after all.

Quote
Second, if she were repelled by you and did object, you would be violating the ZAP if you forced yourself on her. In any case, do you really want to rape your twin sister?

Not me. Ugh. But I wouldn't want a female clone with an empty mind, either. We're guessing about people who are very different from us.

So, the concept is a clone that's mentally undeveloped. If she was raised from the first with the idea that she'd have sex on command any time,  with anybody her keeper wanted her to, she might not learn to object. She might not develop the concept that she could object.

Quote
And there's no need to ever expose her to another male's smells, to get a baseline to compare against.

That's not the way it works. Either the HLA is similar or it is not (or somewhere in between). There is no "baseline." "Women don't compare a man's pheromones to other men's. They compare a man's pheromones to her own. So icky is still icky.

Maybe so, maybe not. We don't have any women available who lack a baseline. So we won't really know how it works until it happens. I'd be just as happy if the experiment never gets performed and we never find out those particular fact in that particular way.

SandySandfort on May 26, 2011, 06:38:08 pm
Sure, and some men might find their own clone attractive anyway. Hardly any men require alien pheromones to masturbate, after all.

You are not paying attention. Pheromones allow us to read out other peoples HLA, the genes that make up our immunological system. It is important to not be attracted to your sister, for basic genetic health. So similar HLA, means that not only will there be no mutual attraction, but if they are similar enough, a persons very proximity can cause disgust and antipathy.

Given that, why should someone "find their own clone attractive anyway"? This is a dandruff argument of the form. "The world is A, but what if it were not A?" People do not find people with very similar (virtually identical, in the case of a clone) attractive. Now if you are talking about things like Bruce and Damion both like to fish and they find each other visually attractive, fine. But they still will not be attracted on a pheromone level. Even if you hand wave and declare it so.

I have met women on dating sites who were perfect matches for me. Brains, beauty, similar politics, similar tastes and so on. When we met in person, though... nothing, no spark, no interest. Of course it was mutual, so my best guess is pheromones.

Now, if you really wanted your clone to not find you disgusting, you could destroy both of your VNOs, the organ that perceives pheromones. Then their would be no icky, but there would be no pheromonal attraction either.

So, the concept is a clone that's mentally undeveloped. If she was raised from the first with the idea that she'd have sex on command any time,  with anybody her keeper wanted her to, she might not learn to object. She might not develop the concept that she could object.

"Learn" to object? Don't be silly. Do you have to "learn" to react when someone sticks you with a pin? If you "smell" disgusting, there is no learning curve. She objects, plain and simple.

Also, what is this crap about her "keeper"? Sounds like a hostage situation to me. In a free society, I can easily imagine someone rescuing her. Defense of another is not a violation of the ZAP.

Quote
Maybe so, maybe not. We don't have any women available who lack a baseline. So we won't really know how it works until it happens. I'd be just as happy if the experiment never gets performed and we never find out those particular fact in that particular way.

More dandruff hand-waving. To date, every indication that if she is disgusted she is disgusted with your HLA. There is no indication that there is anything like a "baseline of disgust." You are just making shit up. Creative, but intellectually dishonest.

mellyrn on May 26, 2011, 08:57:42 pm
Quote
she might not learn to object. She might not develop the concept that she could object.

Ah.  You are not a parent (or, if you have physically reproduced, you've been an absentee parent either geographically or in terms of sheer attention).

No child "learns" to object.  Maybe if we were eusocial creatures like bees or termites, no issue of autonomy would ever arise -- but we're not; had you noticed?  But you could teach your clone that it is very painful to reveal that she objects.

So, OK, what-if some psychopath does create a clone who can't object (maybe by "virtue" of appropriate brain damage)?  What about it, exactly?  Is the situation substantially different from a psychopath who merely kidnaps someone and torments them into total submission?  Yeesh.

spudit on May 26, 2011, 09:27:52 pm
Admission time. I am an identical twin. It gives me a perspective on cloning, thanks, already got one.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

J Thomas on May 26, 2011, 09:35:59 pm
Sure, and some men might find their own clone attractive anyway. Hardly any men require alien pheromones to masturbate, after all.

You are not paying attention. Pheromones allow us to read out other peoples HLA, the genes that make up our immunological system. It is important to not be attracted to your sister, for basic genetic health. So similar HLA, means that not only will there be no mutual attraction, but if they are similar enough, a persons very proximity can cause disgust and antipathy.

You continually believe that your theories are reality. I don't exactly know what to say about that. If reality hasn't yet convinced you that your theories are not reality I doubt I can do it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323429,00.html

Incest happens. However, if there was only one gene involved there would be a 1 in 4 chance that two siblings would not share either copy of that gene. And the more genes involved, the more the average result would be to share only half of them. Maybe the various cases of incest where people don't know they're siblings and marry by accident all involve unrelated HLA antigens.

Still, it does happen. You are convinced the system prevents incest and that people with similar HLA patterns cannot have sex and cannot want to have sex. I believe this is probably overstated. There's a chance you might be right. But that's irrelevant to the topic, because we're already talking about a little genetic engineering to change gender etc. It isn't much more to get a new set of HLA markers. If the early adopters find that they don't like their clones, the next set will try HLA modification and find out whether that fixes it.

Quote
Given that, why should someone "find their own clone attractive anyway"?

I dunno. Some people are weird. I can easily imagine I might find my own clone attractive, but I can't imagine creating a clone of myself for a sex toy. That is not something I would want to do to my self or my clone or for that matter anybody else.

Quote
So, the concept is a clone that's mentally undeveloped. If she was raised from the first with the idea that she'd have sex on command any time,  with anybody her keeper wanted her to, she might not learn to object. She might not develop the concept that she could object.

"Learn" to object? Don't be silly. Do you have to "learn" to react when someone sticks you with a pin? If you "smell" disgusting, there is no learning curve. She objects, plain and simple.

If it's built in like fear of falling that you never have sex with anybody who smells wrong, then I think you're right. But it might be different for somebody who has had  sex with her keeper from the day she was born.

Quote
Also, what is this crap about her "keeper"? Sounds like a hostage situation to me. In a free society, I can easily imagine someone rescuing her. Defense of another is not a violation of the ZAP.

This is not part of what Sam said, but it seems like a plausible extension to me. Say you go to all the trouble of having a gene-spliced clone made. You receive a female physiologically-adult clone that is six months old. It can crawl but not yet walk, and has no language skills etc. You give your clone her bottle, and teach her to eat solid food, and teach her to walk and to talk. You potty train her. You raise her, having regular sex with her whenever you want. After, say, 15 years of this she will have learned a lot about the outside world. Maybe she starts to see you as a creepy old man. Maybe she meets somebody she likes better -- and you can't keep her from meeting anybody ever, or making romantic attachments over tanglenet. She breaks out of her cell and runs away and never comes back. Very much like being a single parent except for the sex. After you do all that hard work, the diapers, the tantrums, the adolescent rages, everything, then just as she starts really growing up she's gone.

So the kind of man who'd do this might quite likely order a feeble-minded clone. She learns easily to use the potty and wipe and flush, all the things that are real inconvenient for her not to learn, but nothing more. She doesn't learn that he is a creepy old man, she doesn't learn to flirt over tanglenet, she never develops any illusion that she can take care of herself. So he can keep her as long as he wants, not just 15 years. If he isn't tired of her when she starts to get old, he can have her rejuvenated. And yes, she needs a keeper. He designed her that way.

Maybe you'd like to rescue her? He asks for an arbitrator. He claims she is unable to take care of herself, and he documents the 1200 gold he has spent on her, which she has signed a contract promising to repay. If you want to take care of her he's willing, but would you mind taking on her debt? Just pay him his 1200 gold and promise you'll take good care of her, and you can have her. Maybe the arbitrator rules that you don't have to pay anything, that all you must do is promise to take good care of her, and she must choose whether to go with you. Do you want her? Presumably she will have sex with you whenever you want, but wouldn't you rather find a smart woman who can take care of herself if she needs to?

J Thomas on May 26, 2011, 09:48:03 pm
Quote
she might not learn to object. She might not develop the concept that she could object.

Ah.  You are not a parent (or, if you have physically reproduced, you've been an absentee parent either geographically or in terms of sheer attention).

I have only two children but they are coming along nicely.

Quote
No child "learns" to object.  Maybe if we were eusocial creatures like bees or termites, no issue of autonomy would ever arise -- but we're not; had you noticed?  But you could teach your clone that it is very painful to reveal that she objects.

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was talking about. A man who buys a clone as a sex toy and goes through the trouble of potty-training her etc will probably not want a sex toy that only has sex when she chooses to.

Quote
So, OK, what-if some psychopath does create a clone who can't object (maybe by "virtue" of appropriate brain damage)?  What about it, exactly?  Is the situation substantially different from a psychopath who merely kidnaps someone and torments them into total submission?  Yeesh.

Yes. I thought this was what Sam was talking about, but he didn't discuss these details. "The devil is in the details." He may instead have been talking about having a fertile female clone to have babies with, but that's no good. Except for the new genes, the children will be homozygous at half the sites. Lots of recessives show up, some of them things you probably don't want to see. You could have all the known problems fixed when the clone is made, but it's the unknown ones that you and your clone contribute to science that will be problems for your children.

If you want a clone to have children with, depending on copyright it would probably be cheaper and certainly better to get a copy of Marilyn Monroe or Ursula Andress or Lady Gaga or whoever.

SandySandfort on May 26, 2011, 10:53:21 pm
You continually believe that your theories are reality. I don't exactly know what to say about that. If reality hasn't yet convinced you that your theories are not reality I doubt I can do it.

When I contemplated going into a business based on pheromonal attraction, I read all the literature I could get my hands on. I also was in touch with leaders in the field. Since you have, at best, only done a once over lightly, I agree that you don't have the facts to back your theories.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323429,00.html

Incest happens. However, if there was only one gene involved there would be a 1 in 4 chance that two siblings would not share either copy of that gene. And the more genes involved, the more the average result would be to share only half of them. Maybe the various cases of incest where people don't know they're siblings and marry by accident all involve unrelated HLA antigens.

Oh, now there is an "incest gene"? In any case, we are not talking about fraternal twins or other siblings with potentially unrelated HLA. I realize that statistical possibility exists. However, what we are talking about, is what would essentially be an identical twin, so all the math about gene inheritance goes out the window. All 50+ HLA genes will be 100% identical in the case of clones.

Also, the original supposition was that a "lot of guys" would do this. I merely said it would be a bad idea, because of the identical HLA. Even then, I gave one way the negative attraction inherent in identical HLA, could be thwarted. I.e., be by destruction of the VNO.  However, without doing that, all of your other nonsense about "baselines" and "not learning to object" still reduce down to mere hand waving, as opposed to actual research on the subject.

Still, it does happen. You are convinced the system prevents incest and that people with similar HLA patterns cannot have sex and cannot want to have sex. I believe this is probably overstated.

Yes, but it is your overstatement! J Thomas, this is not the first time you have claimed to know what I am convinced of. Your interpretation of what you think I believe is totally false and unsupportable. You see, J Thomas, the problem with strawman arguments, is sometimes the strawman kicks your ass when he is revealed.

It isn't much more to get a new set of HLA markers.

Really? What is an HLA "marker" anyway? Sounds like more hand waving to me. The HLA does two things, it creates our immunological system and produces pheromones. What your saying is that you can change one function without interfering with the other. What research are you relying on for that flippant "it isn't much more" claim? As I said before, you are just making shit up.

If it's built in like fear of falling that you never have sex with anybody who smells wrong, then I think you're right. But it might be different for somebody who has had  sex with her keeper from the day she was born.

"It might be different"? That's the basis of your argument? I weep with pity.

Maybe you'd like to rescue her? He asks for an arbitrator. He claims she is unable to take care of herself, and he documents the 1200 gold he has spent on her, which she has signed a contract promising to repay.

Now the girl who has to be potty trained has signed a contract? Arbitration would simply find her not competent to enter into contract. Also, whether or not you can use force to keep her prisoner, is dubious. Even if an arbitrator could find that an infant was competent to enter a contract (never happen), it does not follow that the debt needs to be worked off in your custody. If she were competent to enter into a contract, she would be competent to go out in the world and get a job to repay you. Courts and arbiters are loath to require "specific performance" where money damages can be assessed, as in this case.

If she can walk out the door, she can walk out with a rescuer, who would be under no obligation to give you squat. Your only recourse is the clone. Nor would the rescuer be under any obligation to take care of her and there would be absolutely no basis for an arbiter to rule otherwise. But wave your hands some more, maybe you will come up with something plausible. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

quadibloc on May 27, 2011, 12:32:15 am
It isn't much more to get a new set of HLA markers.

Really? What is an HLA "marker" anyway? Sounds like more hand waving to me. The HLA does two things, it creates our immunological system and produces pheromones. What your saying is that you can change one function without interfering with the other. What research are you relying on for that flippant "it isn't much more" claim?
I remember the news item about women preferring men similar to them when on the Pill, and then preferring men different from them when off it.

Why couldn't rejuv change someone's HLA markers? After all, if it changes an individual's immune system, it would just change it to another valid human immune system. So you just have to change the genetic code and the proteins in his body to those which that new immune system would recognize.

Essentially, while the brain's connections stay the same, in most other ways one would just change the subject into someone else. Which seems to be the extreme case of the technology required for rejuv - instead of just refreshing the telomeres and modifying the odd gene, do it pretty much wholesale.

J Thomas on May 27, 2011, 08:02:19 am
You continually believe that your theories are reality. I don't exactly know what to say about that. If reality hasn't yet convinced you that your theories are not reality I doubt I can do it.

When I contemplated going into a business based on pheromonal attraction, I read all the literature I could get my hands on. I also was in touch with leaders in the field. Since you have, at best, only done a once over lightly, I agree that you don't have the facts to back your theories.

I believe that your particular wild extrapolation from the data is probably the best single wild extrapolation from the data we can get at the moment. This does not justify a whole lot of certainty.
 
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707643134
Here is an abstract from a report that two HLA loci did not affect mating preference in a particular human population. I don't think this is definitive since the abstract does not say how specifically they tested. They looked at two of the three peptides involved; maybe the third one is required for selection, to the point that they would get no statistical effect from just the first two.

Much of the research I found from a quick search was recent. If you did your intensive study before 2007 you should consider yourself out of date.

http://www.neurofly.com/FYSM109_files/Proc%20Biol%20Sci%201995%20Wedekind.pdf
Here is the original paper which started the popular meme. They found that when women rated the smells from t-shirts on a scale of 1 to 10 based on "pleasant" or "sexy" the average result was around 5.4 for "dissimilar" men and around 4.7 for "similar" men.This was statistically significant, but the point was to show that women could tell the difference and had some preference, not that it was an absolute mating restraint.

You have presented yourself as an authority that I should believe. I don't believe anybody in the world has enough data to justify the certainty you claim.

You have other strategies available. You can present links to the data. Or you can say you're right but it isn't worth your time to show it.

From what I've seen, I'd bet 90:10 that HLA antigens have some effect on human mating choices, and I'd bet 52:48 that they have so much effect that people who have very similar HLA antigens will hardly ever mate with each other. That is, I think you're right but I don't believe it very strongly.

Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323429,00.html

Incest happens. However, if there was only one gene involved there would be a 1 in 4 chance that two siblings would not share either copy of that gene. And the more genes involved, the more the average result would be to share only half of them. Maybe the various cases of incest where people don't know they're siblings and marry by accident all involve unrelated HLA antigens.

Oh, now there is an "incest gene"? In any case, we are not talking about fraternal twins or other siblings with potentially unrelated HLA.

Yes, that's what I was saying. The fact that incest does happen with fraternal twins raised separately could be from fraternal twins who have unrelated HLA. Or it could sometimes be fraternal twins with identical HLA -- that would have to be tested and a quick web search did not show it had been tested.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 08:05:13 am by J Thomas »

J Thomas on May 27, 2011, 08:18:38 am

Also, the original supposition was that a "lot of guys" would do this.

That was not my supposition. Cloning will presumably be easy, compared to the task of raising a child to age 15 or 18 or whatever. If it turns out possible for the cloning to turn out an adult-size baby (which at this point is a giant leap into the dark), then the owner gets to have some sort of sex with her from the start, but also has all the disadvantages of an adult-size baby. I strongly doubt this will happen much at all beyond guys who can afford full-time assisted care. So, you hire a full-time nurse. And of course you want one that you find attractive, who's willing to have sex with you on a regular basis. And after you find her, what's the clone for?

Quote
I merely said it would be a bad idea, because of the identical HLA.

I agree that it's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons. It may seem like a good idea ahead of time to a few rich men who have no friends.

Quote
Still, it does happen. You are convinced the system prevents incest and that people with similar HLA patterns cannot have sex and cannot want to have sex. I believe this is probably overstated.

Yes, but it is your overstatement!

Sure, but it follows directly from your claims. You say that men cannot be attracted to their clones because the smell will be so wrong that they cannot get it up. Or did you mean something else? You sure seemed to say that the scheme cannot work, and this sure sounds like the reason you say it cannot work. If this isn't what you're saying, what are you saying?

J Thomas on May 27, 2011, 08:29:10 am

It isn't much more to get a new set of HLA markers.

Really? What is an HLA "marker" anyway? Sounds like more hand waving to me. The HLA does two things, it creates our immunological system and produces pheromones. What your saying is that you can change one function without interfering with the other. What research are you relying on for that flippant "it isn't much more" claim? As I said before, you are just making shit up.

Quadribloc sort of got it. The HLA genes are on chromosome 6 and they are mapped. We already had to suppose that the cloners could remove a Y chromosome and add an X chromosome from somebody else. (Heinlein postulated using a second copy of the same X chromosome. That works when you don't have unknown undesirable recessives etc on your X chromosome.) It's only 3 times the work to also remove both chromosome 6's and replace them with somebody else's. Then your clone has somebody else's HLA antigens. A little harder to splie in somebody else's HLA genes into your chromosome sixes and then your clone has mostly your chromosome 6 but somebody else's HLA genes. Problem solved.

Quadribloc suggested splicing in somebody else's HLA genes during rejuv. That looks harder to me, because you need to do it correctly in trillions of cells. If you do it in a clone, you only need to do it right once and each cell that has a mistake can just be thrown away. But rejuv is totally hypothetical so it might turn out to be not so hard to do genetic engineering during rejuv. Since we can only do handwaving to say how it could work, we can also only do handwaving to say how it can't work.

happycrow on May 27, 2011, 08:30:18 am
Admission time. I am an identical twin. It gives me a perspective on cloning, thanks, already got one.

I am also.
And I for damned sure, even if HLA wasn't a factor (which Sandy's right, it would be an overwhelming one), wouldn't be involved in something like that.  My solution to somebody who has only sex to offer is "walk away."  Maybe not all guys are like that.  But then, a lot of guys act like they want to go on the Jerry Springer Show, too...

J Thomas on May 27, 2011, 08:44:15 am
Maybe you'd like to rescue her? He asks for an arbitrator. He claims she is unable to take care of herself, and he documents the 1200 gold he has spent on her, which she has signed a contract promising to repay.

Now the girl who has to be potty trained has signed a contract? Arbitration would simply find her not competent to enter into contract. Also, whether or not you can use force to keep her prisoner, is dubious.

Yes, the defendant's arguments are contradictory. If she's competent to agree to a debt contract then she's competent to decide for herself where to live, within her means.She can walk out if she wants to.

So his remaining choice is to show she isn't competent. If her genes were chosen to make her feebleminded, that shouldn't be hard to do. His claim that she owes him money, though, would fall through.

Quote
If she can walk out the door, she can walk out with a rescuer, who would be under no obligation to give you squat. Your only recourse is the clone. Nor would the rescuer be under any obligation to take care of her and there would be absolutely no basis for an arbiter to rule otherwise.

Well, but if you were arbitrating, what would you do about a feeble-minded person who is not responsible? Would you send her to the tender mercies of the general public? She has one keeper who takes some kind of care of her.

If it was me, I'd let the plaintiff advertise what he knows about the situation, subject to defendant's right not to be slandered. If nobody volunteers to keep her, she gets Hobson's choice. If there are one or more alternatives, let her choose which one she wants.

I would not think much of a plaintiff who said what her current keeper was doing was unacceptable, and who failed to offer a better alternative.

What would you do?

SandySandfort on May 27, 2011, 05:22:15 pm
You have presented yourself as an authority that I should believe. I don't believe anybody in the world has enough data to justify the certainty you claim.

There you go again, making shit up. If you believe I have presented myself as an authority, please cite where I said any such thing. What certainty did I claim? Please cite where I said any such thing. I tire of your constant attribution where none exists. Words have meaning.