"up the long ladder" and the crew's attitudes toward cloning

[sonak]

In this episode, the crew rejects having themselves cloned to help a struggling colony of clones on the grounds that doing so would violate their "individuality." I found this more of a 20th-21st century attitude toward cloning, rather than an enlightened Star Trek 24th century view, when I would have expected human cloning to be somewhat common, and of course a clone may be a genetic copy, but it is not "you," and doesn't really diminish individuality.


Secondly, after Riker and Pulaski are cloned against their wills, Riker kills the developing clones that are being made of them. This part was an obvious analogy to a pro-choice view on abortion, but to me it is a flawed analogy.

If we go with the metaphor that Riker was "raped," then what he did was more like killing a baby that resulted from a rape after the baby was born, not having an abortion during pregnancy. The pro-choice argument is about autonomy over one's body, but here the clone was already a separate entity. And in the DS9 episode "a man alone" Odo says that killing one's clone is still murder.

So was what Riker did murder? And does he have a habit of casual murder?("the vengeance factor")

 

[Timo]

I would have expected human cloning to be somewhat common

But apparently it isn't - the only flimsy evidence we might have of cloning in TOS is the ubiquitous "Mr Leslie", appearing in a thousand guises, but he's never explicated as a clone, either. "Up the Long Ladder" is in line with this precedent.

it is not "you," and doesn't really diminish individuality

That's one way to believe. Humans have chosen to believe oddly about many a thing in the past, and will probably continue to make choices that are not based on absolute practical necessity but become overruling moral imperatives regardless.

The pro-choice argument is about autonomy over one's body, but here the clone was already a separate entity. And in the DS9 episode "a man alone" Odo says that killing one's clone is still murder.

Under whose law? On other occasions, Bajoran law applied on the station...

Also, killing one's clone is murder. But when does the clone become a clone? "Up the Long Ladder" nicely dovetails to the abortion issue by having Riker murder incomplete, "prenatal" clones. Only the murder of a fully grown clone was established as illegal in "A Man Alone".

So was what Riker did murder? And does he have a habit of casual murder?

Riker is a soldier - murder is his profession. He also seems to be what counts for law enforcement in the Federation. It might be that a random civilian might not be entitled to murder his own clone. But if he phoned Riker and asked him to do that for him, things might well be just dandy.

("The Vengeance Factor")

All of our heroes have shot dead opponents who used lethal force. Even Kirk (although only after he grew old and bitter - back in TOS, he used stun even during a declared war against the Klingon Empire!). Yuta used lethal force. And Riker used his discretion.

Whether just stunning Yuta would have accomplished something is debatable. Gradually increasing the setting of the phaser seemed to slow down her murderous rampage. Going up two more notches, instead of a dozen, might have slowed it even more. But would it ever have stopped the rampage? Yuta was unstoppable - stunning and imprisonment would only slow her down by a decade or two, or perhaps a century or two.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BriGuy]

Murder is Riker's profession?

WTF!!??!!??!!!

Since when did you get the idea Starfleet is a band of murderous thugs? It's an exploratory organization, especially in this time frame. It's also the Federation's defensive organization. But as a Starfleet officer, Riker is not a soldier first.

And, soldiers aren't murderers. Geez.

 

[Timo]

Of course they are - they go aboard to kill people who are protected by their respective laws, and go unpunished (or even rewarded) if they win. If they lose, customs vary on whether they are executed for murder or merely deported.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RAMA]

I understand the crew's reaction to being abducted and biological samples taken without their will...its sensible...but the crew's reaction to cloning isn't sensible, even though it's a valid personal/tv show response.

RAMA

 

[sonak]

I understand the crew's reaction to being abducted and biological samples taken without their will...its sensible...but the crew's reaction to cloning isn't sensible, even though it's a valid personal/tv show response.

RAMA

and what got me wasn't just that a few senior officers felt that way, but Picard says(and we're meant to take this as basically the case) that the entire crew pretty much feels that way.


Um.... what? I mean, attitudes toward cloning are more varied than that NOW. You're telling me that in an almost techno-utopian future, attitudes toward cloning are MORE uniform, and in a less open-minded way? That's pretty hard to accept.

 

[RAMA]

I understand the crew's reaction to being abducted and biological samples taken without their will...its sensible...but the crew's reaction to cloning isn't sensible, even though it's a valid personal/tv show response.

RAMA

and what got me wasn't just that a few senior officers felt that way, but Picard says(and we're meant to take this as basically the case) that the entire crew pretty much feels that way.


Um.... what? I mean, attitudes toward cloning are more varied than that NOW. You're telling me that in an almost techno-utopian future, attitudes toward cloning are MORE uniform, and in a less open-minded way? That's pretty hard to accept.

My only answer...the pre-UFP societies experienced the donwside of cloning/genetic manipulation too often and it colored their views. it makes them think that no one can conduct such research with any integrity.

My feeling is that clones will be totally separate from their original donor..totally new humans....UNTIL the brain is more understood and mapped, and can be "uploaded" into the host clone...if it is so desired...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

 

[Timo]

I don't see it as all that surprising. Ask educated people today how they feel about eugenics and the sterilization of substandard individuals, and you're hard pressed to find a supporting view. Ask the question 120-130 years ago and you get the full range of opinions, the lack of uniformity you are expecting or hoping for. Why is this? Nothing about the hard scientific facts of eugenics has changed in the meantime. Nor have education levels wavered among said educated population group. It's just that the Nazis happened.

Eugenics didn't go away at once, exactly because the facts didn't change. But there's now a totally irrational bias against eugenics that is basically universal among the intellligentsia. And mankind isn't worse off for it - we can afford such biases, just like we once could easily afford considering blacks an inferior type of human or a barely superior type of ape, or women a brainless add-on to, well, mankind. There's nothing absolutely wrong about such things until they become absolutely wrong, and nothing absolutely right about such things until they become absolutely right.

Trek has made a futuristic prediction (not in any serious sense, mind you) that future humans (and assorted other Feds) will hate cloning and consider it immoral not to murder clones when the opportunity arises. It's probably as good a bet as claiming that future humans still will have militaries and marriages.

Timo Saloniemi