Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
... the clones seem to understand on some level that they've been cloned from human "trash," so to speak, in the morality of the universe. Whores, thieves, and so forth. Yet another passing suggestion of underlying issues, since it shows that cloning, while accepted, is still found to be somewhat morally dubious. "Good people" don't have clones and the dross of humanity can be assumed to have either compromised souls or have lost them, I suppose.
|
Cloning the "trash" didn't make much sense to me--in the unethical society the author has created, why not just use the existing trashy members as the donors; why waste time and effort to grow clones of these dregs of society?
It seems more realistic for rich people to have clones--so that if they need a new organ, they've got a perfect match in reserve. They pay for the cloning and the housing of the clone till needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
In the real world organs are essentially used for one thing. Transplant directly from a donor to a recipient. Organ transplants do not cure cancer or other diseases unconnected with the organs function. Nor can organs be used to create miracle cures. This effectively blows criticisms of the credibility of the donation process out of the water. Our science does not apply. In the book organs are harvested for research. They are harvested for miracle cures, perhaps for use in drug production. We just don't know. We do know that they are needed to cure otherwise incurable diseases in some unexplained manner. We simply don't know whether there is some medical reason for the donation process. It is not hard to imagine such reasons. The author just wanted to tell a particular story.
|
Fine, but then why not dump the donation business and say the clones are used for scientific research or drug experiments? Why use the concept of organ donation that simply doesn't fit the scenario and only muddies the waters?