Alexander Hollins
Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:18:56 -0800
I was going to say, we've enough evidence of twins , seperated at birth, brought up in very different environments, being very similar to each other as adults.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > This brings up the "nature vs nurture" debate - BUT - also let's update the > scenario in a modern techno-context ... IOW don't overlook that fact that we > are approaching a future where, due to artificial intelligence and "expert > systems", it might be possible to maximize both nature and nurture - at the > same time and in the same individual. > > Not sure how that would work, in actual practice, but it would rely heavily > on computerized training and enforced hardship - but should be able > (eventually) to mitigate the problem of the 'spoiled rich kid' or the > underachiever who is rebelling against too much familial pressure ... > > ... this is starting to sound like neo-eugenics, eh? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mauro Lacy > >> Of course, there is *zero assurance* that the "clone of a genius" will >> follow in the footsteps of the progenitor, and likewise rise to the same >> level of accomplishment > > I dare to make a prediction: if human cloning is achieved and done(and we > all know it will be, in some not so distant future) the clones will be > radically different from the original individual. > > Not in physical aspect and abilities, of course, but I think that many > people will be greatly surprised about what a poor student Galileo's clone > will be: a student of median intelligence, with no interest whatsoever in > physics and astronomy. > > Best regards, > Mauro > > > > > > >