Cloning and allergy-host-clones for Yeerks

[RYTX]

Oh yeah, I meant to do a whole thing about how those changes are harder in adults then children but they do still occur to a less extent. No crushingly relevant, but worth remembering

This though: "I'm not sure reinforced neural connections are passed on in genes."
No it wouldn't be passed on in genes, but it would, or should be passed on in morphs. It's more than just the DNA molecule changing, it's the expression, the placement. And this is were my conundrum comes in: really memory, sentience, instinct, abilities both cognitive and bodily are, presumably, contained in the physical vessel.  Assuming that this isn't stuff locked up in some incorporeal soul, that it is retained in the body in some way we don't yet understand, a morph should have the originals body. And thus a similar mind.
Really, from the science perspective, I can't see a reason why a morph wouldn't have the original's mind, memory, persona etc.

It comes down to morphing theory. Can you morph a baby tiger from an adults DNA? You shouldn't be able to, and then you should actually have that creatures....everyt hing.
Applegate doesn't do it for reason's given in the series, but a morph clone would be different than a genetic clone.

Really, I think the morality of giving it to a Yeerk is the same, but I do think it's something that should be kept in mind about morphing morality in general


Alternative method and ethics worth considering later: multiple host via splitting i.e. starfish

[SkyMorpher]

Oops. I stand corrected.

[Noelle]

I've skimmed the posts, if I miss any points, feel free to say so.

Firstly, I would contest the point that animals aren't sentient.  (Big surprise.)  The definition of sentience I am using:

sentience, sentiency
n
1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness
2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling


Animals have awareness and mental perception, even if not as developed as humans.  They aren't capable of higher order intelligence (though some studies are contesting this, I could post a billion but for the sake of brevity I won't,) but they are capable of feeling and being aware of their surroundings.  They can suffer, fear, be content, etc.  The sense of being controlled, especially once they realize they have the ability to not be controlled (when the Yeerk leaves their body) would most likely invoke some sort of suffering, whether it is that of realizing they have the ability to exist on their own or the fear of realizing they can exist on their own.  In my opinion, this is unfairly subjecting them to a life they did not choose, whether they are animal or human.


To me, the stage at which they are infested is irrelevant.  At any stage of development they are created in, they can gain the ability to create their own life.  Obviously, their development would be stunted, but they still have the ability to function on their own.  I can find no justification for a yeerk or any other creature to control another without 100% consent with 100% understanding.  Clones aren't capable of understanding what they are being subjected to.



On a slightly off-topic tangent, one situation where I can think of where it would be ethical to suggest a human take on a yeerk would be for a mutually benefit cause.  For example, there is research being done with using parasites/parasite derivatives to treat auto-immune diseases like lupus.  From what I have heard, it has had a relatively high success rate.  It stands to reason that perhaps infesting a human with a yeerk could have a similar effect, and I'm sure many people would work out a peaceful symbiosis in order to lead a full life free from the effects of the disease, and it is possible that the yeerk is developed enough to withstand the redirection of the human's immune system.

Here's a link.  Warning, if you're squeamish, probably shouldn't watch it.   

http://online.wsj.com/video/can-a-parasite-cure-some-autoimmune-diseases/B19D23F5-207A-44FE-8B4F-FDD69F7DEBC3.html