Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
In the Society it serves to preserve and further the isolation of the clones. This isolation does not seem to be imposed by law, but by the clones themselves. Having and raising children is not consistent with their destinies. Such children would be orphaned if born to two clones. If born to a clone and a "normal" then the mother or father would disappear from the Child's life once donations began, or more horrifyingly continue to visit the clone parent as they were taken slowly apart. Many of those with clone partners would agitate for clone rights. Clone fertility would inevitably have lead to the closer integration of these sub-humans into normal society. Sterility is an easy solution. No laws, no guards, no heavy handed enforcement needed.
Further, if clones were truly considered sub-human and it was easily possible to ensure their sterility, I doubt the decision to do so would even attract much thought.
Finally, this author did not want to write a book about clones interacting with "normal" society. According to the video interview, he wanted to write a book about love and friendship amongst people facing mortality. Anything else he seems to have considered extraneous.
|
Your interpretations are not reflected in any way in the text. I do not believe that this author, who glossed over so many details that would have added veracity, sat down and thought out the sterility angle at all. I think it more likely that he didn't bother to research if cloned animals could or could not reproduce.
And if the interaction with normal society is extraneous, why was sex with non-clones specifically mentioned? I can't be the only reader who thought that that would lead to some subplot.