I see this thread is already over. Moving on...

? Personality doesn't only come from genes. In nature/nurture, genes are mostly 'tendencies', or recipe's and needs to be activated by environment. In the West, environment - nurture - are usually dismissed, and peoples behaviour is deemed 'nature' - 'who they are', but that is untrue, cruel and just a relic from current anti-scientific ideological claims. You can guess which ideology currently shames, and harass people deemed 'not good enough' as they are. It allows any elite establishment to jail and mistreat people bc 'they just ARE bad', and ignore the environment that led them to behave that way. Every prisoner are a prisoner bco environment, and bc the elite believe in what is convenient. We are NOT our genes, and general behaviour is much more associated with nurture after the initial fast development. Twins had the ~same environment until birth, so are very alike later. However, any ideology/religion that fail to include environment in behaviour, will have the same problem.

In short: every time we experience something, our genes get enabled/disabled accordingly. No neuron or cell stays the same in all environments, or throughout our lives. We even get behaviour from how our parents felt in their environment when they fucked us into existence.

Besides, genes are just accumulated environmental influences, so in the big picture all behaviour is really just environment.

Definitely the highest priority for the environment’s well-being.

Bees. And then finally stupid humans

Realistically : bees and other polinetor

Homo Sapians

I don't even know if I'd call it a science, just a series of inferential techniques. David Kaczynski believed that the author of the manifesto sounded a lot like his brother, and told the authorities, who analyzed it and debated whether Ted Kaczynski's letters were similar enough to the Unabomber manifesto to be the same person. It doesn't even need to be a robust scientific model to have the conversation. Really no different from sifting through witness descriptions of a suspect's appearance and seeing who those descriptions match. Investigators can compare their experiences/beliefs about which traits are rare or unique and which threads are worth investigating further. In the end, they had enough for a warrant, and the search itself revealed a lot more hard evidence that Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber.

Even if you would create 1000 clones of me, not one of them would result in the same person that i am. That is somewhat of a comforting thought.

Clone 1001 will be implanted with a cyborg brain and massaged to retain a specific shape in its widdle folds, all the way down.

We even tacked on the rest of a programmable nervous system. We based it on the specific shape of yours, as it was in the 10 seconds after your original death, when we zapped you up like a frog at a High School experiment and scanned you down to the electron interactions within you before your meat could begin to decay.

We thought that was pretty good enough, but we figured you also left all this digital trail full of your life experiences behind, so we used those in reinforcement training.

We think we found where the anarchism comes from, by the way. But we didn't want to take it out. We need you to work on the Europa Ice mines, and foment some of that so we can root it out of the wild worker specimens, then we can see about updating you into the proper capitalist frame.

OH, and yes, you're technically an LLM of yourself, but don't think about that too much.

-Some billionaire's wet dream

Your genes do not change from the moment after conception.

Cloning will get you the same outcome as if someone gave birth to twins (or triplets etc). They might resemble each other, but they won't share memories and (if they are raised in different environments), they won't necessarily act the same way

The personality bit also makes a sort of sense if you think about it. Whether you frame it as "nature or/and nurture" or "genetics and epigenetics", it takes both sides to make a person.

The genetic component is sorta like the blueprint to make a person's hardware, and everyone is made up of very hyper specialized micromachines. Then life experience gives you the software that runs them.

So twins would share the same sort of specific hardware that makes it more likely to optimize for running certain software.

Experience, what happens to you in life shapes your brain equally if not more then your genes

Genetics provides a very loose framework to register, process, and act on learned information. The vast majority of however we define "personality" is a product of learning, not hard-coded by physical gene expression.

You don’t need to talk about it like it’s some kind of hypothetical—the end result would just be identical twins (albeit with an age difference). People have no conceptual trouble with the idea that identical twins are distinct people.

You could even expand on that. DNA is the blueprint (genotype). However you are talking about life, and life will find a way to live to the best of its abilities. Let's dig on that:

• imagine your original dog lacked some nutrients at some point, it may seem minor, ridiculous even but the expression of some sub-recipe could not activate properly during growth. So the recipe(genotype) was there but did not complete. The result (phenotype) is different.

• Life is alive. Lots of things are active, well everything. Ex: for black and white cats, the black spots are due to hot spot on the body. So if you shave your cat, cover some area, it will grow black instead of white.

• Plus you are assuming that the same blueprint, the same conditions give the same results. When replicating cells make mistakes that could radically change behavior, physical appearance, health conditions,etc

The last is more philosophical and less sciency. The more you love a companion, the greater the loss. You regret everything that will be no more. Loss is an expression of the care you gave each other and you still give to each other. It was and is an existence that impacts and affects you.

The pain is so unbearable that it crush to dust the "is it possible to do this" part of your reasoning. It obliterates the "should i do this". And finally it even makes you miss the "should my companion would want that".

It is the thing that i find ugly.The lack of consent. Without consent, There is no care, no love. You love each other so much that even in the absence of the other the effect is so great yet you would disrespect all the things that you have been through, all the lessons and mistakes, all the moments that were precious because they happened once instead of never, all the things you have built together (including yourselfs).

Plus it is a slippery slope. Your companion dumped you (it is a loss!). You clone it, put the same memories, everything in it. You comodified your relationship, your companion. You disrespect their freedom and consent to even leave you.

It dumps you again, those memories of them should be the problem. Do you alter them ? So convenient. Obviously, it is not a relationship but a shitty product, a mere convenience for someone that refuses to grow, to learn.

You could give and receive so much care yet you prefer a farce, a lie where every moment reminds you that those moments are passed and gone. It is not about both of you anymore, it is only about yourself. You have a problem, not a relationship.

I will moderate myself a bit. In all the bits that make us humans you have the fear of pain and loss and the need to control everything. Your way of thinking is not ugly but human. However should you put that into practice in one form or another it will become ugly very fast.

If anyone reading is experiencing such emotions. Take care of yourself, ask for help and share your experience if you are able to. Your relationship is unique. The emotion you experience is a part of human nature.We are not alone.

That's "Nature vs. Nurture". The basic structure of the neuronal network in your brain will be the same at birth (mostly - these things are based on chemistry, which means things like concentration gradients and some sheer thermodynamic randomness come into play, and there seems to be evidence that we start experiencing things even before we are born). But the creation of new connections and pruning of unused ones are based on sensory input, which can never be replicated 1:1 - even if you were able to "replay" the experience of a human over the course of 2 decades, you cannot control the internal state of the person at the moment they experience something, which can fundamentally change how one and the same situation will be perceived.

Even if you would create 1000 clones of me, not one of them would result in the same person that i am. That is somewhat of a comforting thought.

Personality is certainly influenced by genes: there have been cases of identical twins separated at birth allowing similarities between the twins to be studied https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-stories-twins-separated-at-birth.htm

The idea that memories of lived experience can be inherited was historically popular, but has been very much disproven unless you count quite tenuous examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_%28psychology%29

DNA is like a blueprint which describes how to make a person, but it doesn't actually describe the person. There are a whole bunch of things which are slightly random, and will come out differently every time.

Also, there are a lot of things which change over your lifetime because of things you experience. Since your DNA doesn't change*, a clone has to start from scratch and would change differently unless it experiences the same things, including things like the food they eat.

*Strictly speaking DNA can kind-of change, but nowhere near enough to store the kinds of things you're talking about

That's what I drew for reference. Cause toward the end he argues about the new method.

Linda Patrik first identified the Una Bomber: https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/a-conversation-with-linda-e-patrik

id heard his brother turned him in

They published his writings and his brother-in-law recognized it. The mini series with Paul Bellamy is definitely worth watching

we are actually kinda close with crispr and mrna vaccines. we might get to the point where they take a sample and a personal vaccine is created for it.

Cancer is so ugly that I would find more humane lining them in front of a wall and shooting them

Yeah... If I'd be living in 1943 and wishing Hitler would die, would you protest that too?

He's not even wishing, he mentions what they deserve. Small detail, but still

The point is that these people made choices that will cause suffering adnndeath to millions, all son that they can get an extra digit on their bank account. He simply states that for that reason, those people deserve the same fate as theybhavr condemned millions to. I'd say this is a pretty okay thing to say