ArticleIP_3857.txt

   
   
      
         
            

            
               Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected].
            

            
               Love
Them Clones
            

            I agree with Nathan
Myhrvold's argument in "Human Clones: Why Not?" It is hypocritical of our leaders
to issue blanket statements that this type of research should be banned due to
some imagined threat to society in the future.

            The
medical procedures and wonder drugs of this century have been encouraged and
funded with full support of political and religious leaders. Modern medicine
has, as Myhrvold stated, ended or possibly even reversed the evolution of the
human species, producing genetic weaknesses in the population, as a whole. But
we would never propose limiting or discontinuing medical research due to the
importance of human life. I think that the process of cloning should be looked
upon as a possible method of strengthening mankind's weakening genetic makeup
or of preventing some future genetic disaster. And I don't think that
civilization, as a whole, will allow the predicted abuses of genetic
research.

            
               --Steven
Richardson
            

            
               Double
Vision
            

            Two genetically identical
thumbs up to Nathan Myhrvold for "Human Clones:
Why Not?" Not since the heady days of Utah's cold fusion has there been
such a complete nonissue issuing from the halls of science.

            To suggest
that genetic identity between two individuals of differing ages is of any
material consequence to their self-identity is the height of hubris. Identical
twins all over the world would face discrimination--and, what's worse, the
painful process of identifying which one of them was the real one. The
discussion of cloning has forgotten the complexity of human nature and centered
on the kind of loony sci-fi hysteria that embarrasses the relatively few of us
left who have any scientific literacy.

            
               --Evan C. Allen
            

            
               Marry,
Marry, Quite Contrary
            

            The point
of David Frum's argument in the "Gay
Marriage" dialogue seems to boil down to "Look at how severely and for the
worse marriage has changed in the last 30 years." While I see him claiming that
permitting gay marriage is one more step along this path, I don't see him
providing any argument that such unions are themselves bad or any worse than
the other breakdowns of traditional marriage (such as interracial marriage,
multiple divorces, prenuptial agreements, and so forth). Neither does he
provide any answers to the problem, merely a wistful remembrance of how "good"
it was. And if his idea of "good" is forcing roles upon members of a couple,
alimony for life, and community shunning of individuals whose marriages did not
succeed, then Frum is really criticizing modern society, not just marriage.

            
               --Jim Drew
            

            
               Can't Buy
Me Biodiversity
            

            Steven E.
Landsburg exhibited a rather alarming disregard for common sense in his recent
article "Tax
the Knickers Off Your Grandchildren." The greatest foolishness contained in
the article is the assumption that the natural riches that organizations like
the Sierra Club try to preserve can be equated with money. Professor Landsburg
should take note that money can't buy everything, and the ready cash that can
so easily purchase consumer electronics is powerless to restore vanished
biodiversity. The breathtaking thoughtlessness exhibited in this piece has
appeared in lesser forms time and again in the "Everyday Economics" column.
This simple-minded writing misleads readers and slanders economists.

            
               --Yaron Minsky
            

            
               Steven E. Landsburg
replies: Yaron Minsky notes that money can't buy biodiversity and
jumps to the conclusion that money can't (at least partly) compensate
for a lack of biodiversity. On Minsky's reasoning, there's no reason to give
presents to sick children, because presents can't buy health.

            
               It's the
Inflation, Stupid
            

            In the Dialogue on the
"Capital-Gains Tax," Michael Kinsley is quite correct in noting
that, strictly speaking, the capital-gains tax is merely one particular
manifestation of the overall income tax. Nevertheless, he glosses over the
essential unfairness of the current system of taxing capital gains, namely, the
inflation problem.

            Suppose
someone purchases a building in 1980 and sells it in 1990, in a somewhat
appreciated but not especially buoyant market. His capital gain, on which he
must pay tax, will seem like a fat profit. But even relatively low inflation
during the intervening time period will have caused the value of money to
dwindle, thereby diminishing his "gain" in real terms. Capital-gains taxes, to
be fair, must be indexed for inflation, otherwise many long-term investors must
pay tax on gains that are more than offset by inflation.

            
               --Nicholas
Corwin
            

            
               Racy
Headline
            

            The David
Mastio article about U.S. government attempts to influence political events in
other countries was interesting enough, but I don't know whom to blame for the
headline, "Uncle Sam Plays John Huang." Huang is an Asian-American with
well-known fund-raising problems, but it has not been proven that he is trying
to influence American politics on behalf of other nations. The title, in the
context of the article, implies that Huang is a paid agent of a foreign
government. Unless there is a connection between foreign-government funding and
political influence by John Huang, Slate made the all-too-common error of
equating Asian-Americans with foreigners.

            
               --Eddie Chang
            

            
               Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected].