Cloning and allergy-host-clones for Yeerks

[Aquilai]

Speaking of the allergy book. The expelling an allergen morph has some interesting side effects too...Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? Infinite animals!

Main point for discussion: How objectionable would it be to deliberately use allergen clones as hosts? I skip a few steps assuming people have read "The Reaction".

Ok. Imagine an insanely mad universe where a Yeerk could find someone/people morph-capable and allergic to another sentient being to "burp" out a memoryless copy of the sentient being. This could be a non-violent solution for the conscientious Yeerk. People could potentially be body donors.

Possible issues (some relevant to conventional cloning) for debate:

• Loss of identity for the original host (null if consenting)
• Is the clone the property of the original host to give?
• Possibility that the allergen host has the potential to activate it's sentience given enough time
• Donor age limit? An adult allergen will not have had a "growing" stage of their existence. Since the Yeerk will take over the allergen body it is a metaphorical symbiosis in that the allergen may not be able to survive without intelligence or memory.
• Genetic memory species (who's life is it? Null if consenting. If there's a choice this species probably wouldn't be chosen anyway)
• Is this any better than the Iskoort or Arn? Perhaps a bit more inefficient but definitely faster than conventional cloning and less costly than world enslavement. If the Yeerks had a faster method (or were better at bio-engineering) this topic wouldn't exist. Same with the idea of potential frolis manoeuvre allergens or some other fanfictional devices.

Thoughts?

[Morilore]

The central ethical question here is "what is a person"?  Is "personhood" defined by memory?  If so, do people with total and irretrievable retrograde amnesia cease to be "people"?  Would it be ethically OK to infest Loren right after her car accident, since apparently she not only lost her memory of her life, but also of fundamental facts like "what is a tooth"?  If not, and personhood comes with something other than memory, why would allergen clones be anything other than involuntary hosts by another means?

[RYTX]

Short answer: very objectionable

Circumstantial and personal considerations: I find it appalling to insist any being into that form of life style, sentience and intelligence aside: i.e. even if Yeerks were okay keeping horse bodies, it's not okay to do that do the horse.

I still a yet to have an acceptable source on the origins of sentience: is someone born sentient? Is sentience itself an instinct? Must you develop it via experience, or is it merely expressed at a certain stage in life, like some more notable physical features?
Applegate doesn't do a great job detailing it's place in morph IMO: is it absent in a morph, or manifest in that suppression of other instincts?
It seemed to me that a morph human/andalite/whatever may not have had the memories and knowledge of the original, but was it non-sentient? Harder to say.

Re: growing thing, even if you have to grow into sentience: Other morphs seem to do fine if the morpher submits to the forms instincts, why would a sentient being be any different? Instinct is like sentience in this some sense; where does it come from, what shapes it, how much of it is retained in the form. If a croc from DNA alone can figure to attack a bear off the bat, I figure an adult human of DNA could figure to run away from a charging bull, or something.

That in mind, original's loss of identity, what about clones? Even if the original consents, if the clone can have it's own mind, it still is basically seeing it's own body relegated to that hell. And I wouldn't say that the clone is one's to give away any more than a set of parent's should be able to say "we'll have a baby just so it can group up to be a host"

Personally I didn't like the Iskoot's methods.  One I'm not clear how it works, and two generating a creature to be a dependent vessel on another, even if reciprocated, still off putting to me.
Creature, no, machine yes. Build some more Chee (weaker Chee) let a yeerk control it for a life time, then be on with the day


And because I looked at the original post

Ah thanks! I must have missed or forgotten that. Okay in which case acquire the leading athletes in their respective fields. You've got yourself a super soldier, the best of the best.

If I'm understanding correctly, with fastest man and most durable man for example- you wouldn't get a super solider who can sprint for 5 hours. Form and function for being excellent in one area negates the ability to excel in an opposing one. More example: A is 100% red muscle (great endurance) B is 100% white muscle (super fast). Mixing them gives you a C 50/50 red and white, not 100% red and another 100% white.  C is faster than A, but slower than B, not as fast as B and as durable as A. Trade offs.
At best you'd end up with the best person in the world at being AVERGE.

If you mean tops in a single field though, fastest and second fastest, well, maybe it compounds, but I don't see how.

[SkyMorpher]

I don't think the Iskoort created an organism, I thought it was two already existing organisms that mutually decided to alter themselves to coexist.

[Morilore]

I've always wondered if there were other ways to solve the Yeerk Riddle without technomagic.  I wonder if it were possible to design a system in which Yeerk infestation is not inherently abusive?

For example, in a society with rules like:
1) No involuntaries
      a) No minor hosts
      b) Being infested occurs entirely on the initiative of an informed, legally competent host
      c) No abusing hosts
      d) Hosts can opt out at any time
2) Hosts and Yeerks are equal citizens in a democratic society (facilitates rule 1)
3) Mandatory period of Yeerklessness between 3-day cycles for every host (facilitates rules 1 and 2 because hosts can report and professionals can diagnose abuse)
4) No Yeerk can infest the same host for more than one cycle in a row (facilitates rules 1 and 2 because other Yeerks can report abuse/Stockholm syndrome/etc.)
5) Keep the Yeerk population low relative to the host population (facilitates rule 2, because Yeerks would not be able to legally subjugate hosts through the democratic process, and rules 1 and 3, because the demand for hosts would be less)

There's no way anything like this could "evolve" from the psychotic Yeerk Empire we all know, but in an A.U. sense I think it's interesting to speculate.

[RYTX]

I don't think the Iskoort created an organism, I thought it was two already existing organisms that mutually decided to alter themselves to coexist.

Guide said, <No, no. I have not made myself clear. The Isk were not conquered by the Yoort. They were created.>
"Say what?"
<Parasitism is a limiting choice. The Yoort moved violently to conquer other species and infest them, but this was not profitable, not in the long haul. So the Yoort used biological engineering techniques to design and create a species specifically to be a symbiote.>

Book 26, page 93




If by minor you mean minors under 18 or whatever, I don't see why not if they can opt out whenever. Maybe not four yro's, but teens and such
I can't help but think it would be good for some kids to have an intimate, intelligible companion.

And then there's the case of what a Yeerk can report. If someone is planning to tear up a work place, or school, could a Yeerk report it?
Is that a violation of privacy, abusing your knowledge of the host, or is it wrong to not report to that information? Or both.

And then there's sharing. Can you imagine being the Yeerk who was in an employee one week, and his boss the next.

Complicated is all I'm saying

[Morilore]

And then there's the case of what a Yeerk can report. If someone is planning to tear up a work place, or school, could a Yeerk report it?
Is that a violation of privacy, abusing your knowledge of the host, or is it wrong to not report to that information? Or both.

Our society already has rules about similar situations.  Medical or religious confidentiality, for instance, is maintained except and only except when the confidant reveals a planned crime; then the doctor or minister is obligated to report to law enforcement, IIUC.  I imagine similar confidentiality rules, with similar exceptions, would have to be in place in this hypothetical society.

[Aquilai]

From Morilore's 1st post. I think a huge part of your "self" is stored in your entire body as memory. For example, assume I magically instantly created an adult genetic copy of myself I would say it would not have my muscle memory from sports that I have played in. It would have a limited version of my "computing" (brain) power but it wouldn't have my knowledge of language, reasoning, or learning experiences. We seem to treat the brain as a static processing unit but from growing up it will have changed so that certain parts will be more developed than others. It is similar to muscle memory in that respect.

A genetic clone with none of these experiences or memories can be seen as a blank slate. It's different from just getting hit on the head and retaining procedural memory (skills like speech, cognitive function etc). A clone made entirely of genes without any past experiences to shape it will not necessarily be able to unconsciously hit the right keys on a piano to play a tune that the original has played a thousand times before. (Unless there is some form of genetic memory in humans.)

This leads to "instinct". When a clone first opens it's eyes, how much does a clone know to do? The Animorphs often describe a morph's instincts. To me this describes a highly generalised form of genetic memory. I always took the Animorph's descriptions of the animal's instincts as a bit of a two-way road. The morphs have the intelligence of humans and the human brain interprets the signals of the cloned animal's brain. We can suppress our own instincts because of our intelligence. The Animorphs do the same thing with animals they create. They suppress the animal's natural instinct to do what the Animorphs want them to do. When a Yeerk takes a host they suppress the host's instincts for their own gains. The problem is decidedly sentience.

Animals aren't sentient. Like RYTX, I agree there are still many questions about sentience. If sentience is something that grows with a person, gained only when a person is at their peak learning capacity, then does an instantly created adult genetic clone render it incapable of sentience? If sentience is uniquely judged by individuals rather than the species as a whole then a non-sentient clone is no better than an animal even though he/she looks human. There is slightly less of a case against using the clone as a host. It brings another point if Yeerks could have mentally deficient humans as hosts (probably for a different topic). What if they could be helped?

Going with the idea that for a cloned human sentience can be achieved, this learning will take time. Unlike children, adults take longer to learn and without a basis for language or experience using cognitive capabilities this could take a long time. Perhaps even with human help it could take many many years for a cloned human to be functioning never mind become accepted into society. With a Yeerk though the cloned being could have a life much sooner. If a clone spends virtually their entire life with the Yeerk they will develop an understanding or the clone feels less like a prisoner because it would have never have lived life without a Yeerk; a form of reliance stronger than simple empathy. If in their entire life and as far as the clone has ever known, living with a Yeerk is all it knows then there is a bond that develops. Admittedly this is starting to sound like Stockholm syndrome but this could be how a clone adapts to a Yeerk.

Of course, this whole point is backwards. You create a clone specifically for a Yeerk. You're not helping the clone because that's what it was made for! The idea of freedom is completely foreign if you never had freedom to begin with which separates this from Stockholm syndrome and separates our conception of Hell from a clone's.

The machine idea is quite nice if that's all a Yeerk wants. A functioning mechanical body. The same reason it doesn't appeal to us is probably why the Yeerks never focused on this area after first getting bodies to use. You want to feel comfortable with a body mechanical/electrical parts are often quite unappealing.

@Morilore's societal rules. It's also less appealing with a society that keeps alternating hosts. It might work for some people but not all. If the Yeerks didn't have all the propaganda then I can see them welcoming an equal citizen type of relationship. Since they need to leave the body every 3 days anyway, it's not like the host couldn't complain unless the Yeerk had their own portable Kandrona or went to some illegal Yeerk pool. Considering how nefarious humans can be that could definitely happen. But yes, this wouldn't likely happen in the Animorphs universe we know.

[Morilore]

Of course, this whole point is backwards. You create a clone specifically for a Yeerk. You're not helping the clone because that's what it was made for! The idea of freedom is completely foreign if you never had freedom to begin with which separates this from Stockholm syndrome and separates our conception of Hell from a clone's.

I still don't see the difference between "clone" and "amnesia patient", or between "clone" and "baby."  Some types of amnesia are extremely severe.

@Morilore's societal rules. It's also less appealing with a society that keeps alternating hosts.

Why?

[Aquilai]

Maybe it's just a matter of opinion. I do see what you mean, I can imagine conditions where an amnesia patient is so mentally traumatised that they become completely incapable of being self-sufficient that they are almost a vegetable. You could say then that person could be a host for a Yeerk. However my view is that a sentient being who has had a life before has experienced freedom, has the potential to recover is different from someone who has never had this experience before. If they never had freedom before so that even the very idea is foreign to them then they would not endure pain or suffering as an unwilling host would. I tend to believe amnesiacs never lose EVERYTHING. If you take into account that amnesiacs also have familial ties and friends it could be hard for them to just let someone else take over their friend's life. Saying that if a Yeerk can help them to recover and is willing to leave the host then that could work for that case. However it's not a solution for the Yeerks as a species. They might not all decide they want to become "therapists".

The reason why this whole idea might even be marginally tolerable is because to the clone it isn't torture or enslavement. The difference I feel between a baby and a clone is that a baby is almost certainly going to develop into a sentient human with their own intentions and life. A debatable point is the similarity of being within a family unit or under care (eg orphanage) and being in an institution for clones developing cognitive function and learning to become a member of society. An instant adult clone has skipped out the growing, learning and developing completely. This makes it so that they are in a much worse case than someone simply suffering (potentially) recoverable amnesia. The only thing a clean slate clone has are it's instincts such as suckling which might not help it to gain sentience. Referring back to my point that you quoted, this whole line of thinking with linking clones and babies is backwards because the whole existence of the clone is for a Yeerk. Similar justification for the Iskoort because parasitism is a limiting existence.

My view towards your last question is clearly more of a feeling than an impersonal logical decision. My opinion is that for most individuals they will want stability in their life. It is much more complicated in terms of developing friends and relationships if you're regularly shipped off to a different host. It is possible to persuade a populace to be ok with this and in real life people with jobs where they move around a lot might be an example of something similar but at some point the majority of people will want to settle down. For another thing, Yeerks might like the idea of experiencing different hosts but it's somewhat...distaste ful to force someone to move if they have a happy working life where they are.

[Morilore]

If they never had freedom before so that even the very idea is foreign to them then they would not endure pain or suffering as an unwilling host would.

If you raise a human from birth in such a way that she is never exposed to the concept of "freedom", could you keep her as a slave for life without hurting her in any way?

I mean, it's not as if people who are slaves in real life don't care until they have the intellectual concept of "freedom" explained to them.  The concept of "freedom" was developed to address a fundamental human need which would remain even if we removed the concept from our mental picture.  In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government's reshaping of language will supposedly prevent people from thinking rebellious thoughts, but even there it won't stop people from suffering and being discontent because their basic needs are not met.  Similarly I can't believe that an allergy clone would never suffer as a host.  Although an allergy clone might, at the instant of her creation, be a completely dependent "blank state", she still in principle has a functional (adult?) human brain.  That suggests that, at some point in the future, she will develop all of the abilities that an ordinary human has, and you have to take her free will into account.  But if society is convinced that, as you say, if she is created without any exposure to the concept of "freedom" then she will never suffer, then society has permission to completely ignore whether or not she is actually suffering.  Then society has created "whole generations of disposable people," and as Captain Picard points out, that's not a good place to be.

[RYTX]

I think a huge part of your "self" is stored in your entire body as memory. For example, assume I magically instantly created an adult genetic copy of myself I would say it would not have my muscle memory from sports that I have played in. It would have a limited version of my "computing" (brain) power but it wouldn't have my knowledge of language, reasoning, or learning experiences. We seem to treat the brain as a static processing unit but from growing up it will have changed so that certain parts will be more developed than others. It is similar to muscle memory in that respect.

A genetic clone with none of these experiences or memories can be seen as a blank slate. It's different from just getting hit on the head and retaining procedural memory (skills like speech, cognitive function etc). A clone made entirely of genes without any past experiences to shape it will not necessarily be able to unconsciously hit the right keys on a piano to play a tune that the original has played a thousand times before. (Unless there is some form of genetic memory in humans.)

See, it's stuff like this that makes me think morphing from DNA alone is impossible.
Because if you can morph something at a certain stage of it's life it should be more like you then say, a clone of you as a child that you grew up along side.

The muscle memory: If you play music, you may notice that at times in your life it's much easier to relearn something than to learn it the first time. It may take you a few times to get back up to speed, but it's a hell of a lot easier than when you first did it, because when you were learning it that first time your body changed. Literally

You create new neurons, form new connections between cells, refine the muscle groups involved in the activity as you learn making lines that just did not exist before: you practice again and again, and those paths are reinforced. Then you stop. They those new lines don't disappear, they just kinda "corrode." You don't use them, but then you come back, and you can do it again once you dust everything off.
But those changes are sustained, and shouldn't forming new cells and modifying them have a DNA component, if not a genetic one?

If we are really morphing a 16 Jake, it may not have his jump shot off the bat, but it should primed to do so.

My point in that is a morph of your body at a point should have your bodily experience because your DNA expressed, possessed at a certain time of life is not the same as the DNA you're born with.  It has the experience unpracticed, but should be able to refine it.
It really isn't a new thing: it's you. More you than a twin, or a clone of you from 5 years ago.


Now, someone else incorporate ethics into that

[Aquilai]

RYTX, you posted just before I wanted to post a reply to Morilore's. I'll edit this/reply to yours when I read it.

[spoiler=@Morilore (unedited)]
I think you're missing(/ignoring?) the distinction about growing up and instantly being created. It's not as simple as never being exposed to the concept of freedom. For a clone who never grew up (period) their interaction with the world would begin through the Yeerk. It's sole experience of growing up would be with the Yeerk.

The worst scenario would be if the Yeerk is cruel and sadistic like the cut-throat Yeerk military. If we go with the idea that the Yeerks lose the ridiculous (Nazi-type) propaganda then having a blank slate type clone is almost like adoption. The clone depends on the Yeerk to help it survive, the Yeerk depends on the host to live. Through the Yeerk the clone can begin to learn about the world. I even said that having a Yeerk could help the clone understand the world and develop sentience sooner than in some institution.

If you want to be evil then you would deliberately enforce the thought to the clone that they need the Yeerk to survive however I'm not certain all Yeerks are born to be cruel. In the books for most Yeerks they suppress sentient life-forms who actually have a will so they have 2 voices in their minds. 1) Obviously the host especially if it's involuntary 2) Their own minds on some level knowing that forcing submission is wrong. If a clone doesn't have a noticeable sentience to begin with then it's sentience grows with the Yeerk's actions and interactions with the world. This to me sounds more symbiotic than parasitic which seems more tolerable than planetary enslavement.
[/spoiler]

Edit:
[spoiler=@RYTX]
I won't deny that there could be more to morphing than just DNA. The example that comes to mind is the telomere part of a being's chromosome. This is almost unquestioned as the key indicator of ageing. However, I question how much is passed on though. In a sense even neuron activity can be considered "superficial" because I'm not sure reinforced neural connections are passed on in genes. Maybe there is some marker that inks down certain changes. There is definitely a case for mutated genes such as from radiation exposure. It is why I stress the importance of maturation.

Hmm ethics. I'm not sure how much more this sense of identity differs from my previous premise. It does bring me back to the idea of ownership. My opinion is the same as yours that if you're creating a whole life-form then you lose your right to own it. Like a sperm/egg donor for in vitro. You don't own the child you create.

In this case you're putting the "child" (physically correct, mentally inaccurate) in a very different home to an orphanage or adopted parents. How it grows is perhaps not even your concern if you readily donate parts of yourself.
[/spoiler]

[Morilore]

I think you're missing(/ignoring?) the distinction about growing up and instantly being created.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't understand why it matters ethically.  At the moment of her creation a clone is a blank slate.  However, from that point moving forward, she "grows up" in a manner probably very different from, but also similar to, a child growing up.  Even if she doesn't understand the concept of "freedom" when she is created, she eventually will.

[Aquilai]

When the Yeerk first enters the host I imagine it would be the same as any Animorph becoming any animal. Consider Tobias, he lives as a hawk which is similar to a Yeerk living as the host. The hawk's needs are met it's instincts and lifestyle become incorporated into Tobias's identity. They become one in a sense. For a host that doesn't have pre-existing intelligence it relies on the Yeerk. For a Yeerk that never had any of the routine, responsibilities and life as a parasite; it relies on the host. Perhaps it's the idea of symbiosis that isn't to your liking?

Of course, I am supposing the Yeerk isn't malevolent. It's impossible to guarantee no one will ever turn out bad. If there are problems the host will have the 3 day opportunity to express their objections when the Yeerk goes to feed. The whole idea is useless if in the end the Yeerks end up with reluctant hosts. I think this could work on the basis, that the host is still making friends, living a life etc the difference is that for the "early"/growth stage of their relationship the Yeerk does most of the directing.

Edit:
Another ethical thought: "I never had a childhood. When is my birthday? Who are my parents?" This is more relegated towards "cloning" ethics. Does the original sentient being have the right to reduce the life-time of their donated clone by about 20 years? Adding this to Morilore's point of view it does seem even more of a problem. Unlike the Isk who were completely created these clones have a diminished lifetime and no "childhood".