On September 21, 1999 -- not so long ago, really -- I started up a contest in the Message Forum. Whichever two Message Forum regulars became engaged to be married first would win the contest. The prize? The title of Official RinkWorks Couple and a signed bathmat. Here's the original post.

I didn't expect anyone would ever claim the prize, much less so soon, but the Message Forum's Darien and Minamoon did so last night. I'm a little stunned, but hey, now I can use the tagline "Find RinkWorks, find love" to advertise this site and give supportive evidence. Is it time to open a RinkWorks dating service?

At any rate, congratulations, Darien and Minamoon, and best wishes to both of you.

And we're back. The main RinkWorks page looks a little different, if you hadn't noticed. It's an experiment; I'm mostly, but not entirely, sure that this is an improvement over how the front page was previously. Lots of you had been asking for some kind of indication on the main page which features had been updated recently -- now you've got it. For new readers, I think it will be more readily apparent that RinkWorks is a dynamic, frequently updated site, although there is the concern that now it may be a little harder for new readers to get a grasp of what constitutes the entirety of "RinkWorks" quickly.

But I think this is a step in the right direction. There will undoubtedly be tweaks to the front page in the days and weeks to come -- I'm going to move the Reader Poll question further down the page, for one thing -- but I think I'm mostly where I wanted to be way back when I first put up the side bar. Comments are welcome, of course.

It's the day before Thanksgiving, here in the United States. I'll be away from this afternoon until Sunday, so RinkWorks will be taking a little break from updates and such. Happy Thanksgiving, all!

RinkChat has been up for three days, now, and I'm a little scared of it. It appears I've become addicted to my own creation. Yesterday I had the window open almost the whole time I was designing new logos for the site: the new logo for this journal is one of the eight I made yesterday (seven for features of RinkWorks that didn't used to have their own logos; one for an upcoming feature). I think things look a lot better now, and I've only got three logos to go before this particular task is done.

Ah, sweet weekend.

To wrap up the clone discussion we've had here (scroll down to November 4th, new readers), I have one final letter to print. This was one of the first letters sent to me on the subject, but I held it back because it spoke of clones in a different context than I was. The following letter refers to real clones: what can be done with today's technology and has been done with other animals.

• From Ralph A.: "I realize that my response isn't exactly what you asked for, but thanks for the chance to sound off on this very important issue.

  "I think the issues regarding having 'another you' boil down to this: do you consider your doppelganger a separate and equal person who has the same appearance, somewhat like an identical twin, or do you consider him or her your creation, in a sense?

  "In my high school speech class, we had a group discussion over cloning. The opinion of some of my peers is that clones, since they are a creation of man and not God, are on the same tier as livestock. They argued that since they're just a work of genetic engineering, they should be treated as any genetically-enhanced animal would be and harvest their organs, non-essential or otherwise.

  "If this is the opinion of our nation's next generation, I sure hope that I'm not the only one praying for our nation's salvation."

Ralph, I couldn't have said it better.

More on single identity clones (new readers, start at November 4th's journal entry and work backwards):

• From Mike D.: "I, for one, would be totally against that. Sure, there are tons of reasons to have a clone. Lighter workload, etc; all the stuff you dreamed of not doing, your clone could do, right? No! The minute your clone comes into existence, he/she becomes you. Not a clone, but you, and at that moment it is impossible to tell who is the clone. You both have the same personality, the same memories. If you clone yourself, the clone will remember cloning you, and while each is dead sure he is the original, each would still have to go to sleep at night with that nagging "what if" feeling. "What if I'm just a genetic xerox?" That would be utterly devastating for both of them.

  "There would be constant conflict. Both would have the same loves, hates, desires, longings, and both would go for them and fight over them. And, being exact duplicates of one another, it would never be resolved. It would be a deadlock. On a verbal level, since both would have the same intelligence, wit, sarcasm, etc., the argument would go on and on and on, until it inevitably would reach a physical level, in which case neither would gain the upper hand. When a conflict goes unresolved, it festers inside you, and, in time, causes depression. And suppose the clone succeeds where you have failed? (I.e., getting a date with that girl you've had a crush on for a year, making a team, nailing an audition....) Imagine what an inferiority complex that would cause! "I'm not even as good as myself!" This would lead back into the "Who's really the clone?" situation. The one that failed would think, "I must be the clone. Less quality than the original." And, knowing that one is just a clone, a machine, in a sense, created by the jerk that stole your girlfriend/took your place in a band/etc, would lead to a total loss of self worth, which would lead almost certainly to suicide.

  "And what if your clone committed suicide? You, of course, are sure he is (was) the clone, your creation, and that fact would make him like sort of a child to you, almost. It would be devastating, or, if nothing else, the fact that you thought you made such an accomplishment but it turned out to be a faliure would be a lot to have to go through. And though you're the only one left now, you still sometimes get that nagging feeling at night: "What if I'm the clone, and it was the original who offed himself?" It would just lead to a downward spiral. There is absolutely NOTHING good that would ultimately come from this."

• From Cindy: "My first thought, reading your question, and the most exciting aspect of the whole concept, I think, is that having a clone would be the most effective way I could think of to improve myself. I've wished many times that I could see myself as I'm seen by others; this would be the only real way to do that. I could watch myself go through life and evaluate myself almost completely objectively; the way I handle myself in certain situations or around certain people, the way I express myself, etc. Am I really a good listener? What kinds of nonverbal signals do I send without realizing it? If I had to look at myself sitting in my la-z-boy and watching TV, would it compel me to do something more productive? It would be like looking at my essence in a mirror, rather than just my appearance. Based on that, I might be more conscious of how I conduct myself. The downside: the realization that the person that I am evaluating and criticizing is in fact myself would be a huge blow to my ego, but if I could get past that without losing my sanity, I think I could make some positive changes. In fact, the whole process could spiral if my clone was evaluating me as well. Thanks for letting me stretch my brain."

The next journal entry will be a final wrap up for this topic.

The mail on this topic (it started on November 4th in this journal; scroll down, new readers) has slowed, so I'm going to post what those have sent me on the topic of multiple bodied individuals up to this point and put a close to the discussion.

• From Andy A.: "I tend to complain a bit too much, so if I was to get cloned, the complaining would double and keep building and building until we hit the Complaint Event Horizon, and soon the entire planet would be nothing but a giant complaining mass sending out telepathic Whine Waves to extraterrestrial civilizations. These civilizations would then start to generate Whine Waves. This would continue to build at an exponential rate until the Universe itself got so dissatisfied with the nature of its existance it would collapse in on itself, the Final Sound Of All Time being an echo of everyone in the Universe saying, 'It's getting too cramped in here, and what's that smell?'

  "So we can see that cloning me would destroy the Universe itself and should be avoided at all costs."

• From "Scaarge": "In all honesty, I would have to say that a clone of myself is a profoundly depressing idea, moreso than most of the ideas I have. So, my short answer would be 'No.' The long answer, to quote Robert Fripp, would be 'Nnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooo.'

  "More useful would be what Superman used to have (and may still have, for all I know): robot duplicates. Considering the amount of time I spend at work running around and fixing things, a machine with no personality or emotions would go unnoticed. In fact, folks might count it an improvement.

  "I think the real reason for a clone/double/whatever is quite simple: physical labor. Certainly not mental labor -- as the correspondents have pointed out, we'd both have the same ideas and come up with the same solutions. (Admittedly, from the time of cloning outward, our paths would be slightly divergent, and we would start to develop independent thoughts and tastes, but we would both have a 'lifetime' of pattern developement already in place. So the way we come up with ideas, what we prefer to do, and what we prefer not to do, would be the same for quite some time.)

  "But if I had someone who could do my (physical) work at my job, or dig up the garden, or fix the tiller so the garden could be dug up, that would be nice. Even better would be someone who could sit at a table and look interested during meetings. Then I could go about my business and flood the world with all those novels I've written. Ok, so maybe that's not such a good idea, then."

• From "Faux Pas": "No, I would not want a second me running around. There's another person who knows every dark thought I've ever had. Someone who knows every dark secret, every embarrassing thing, every disgusting thing I've done in my life -- no, I could do without that. It's not fear of betrayal -- it's jealousy. I like knowing that I'm unique. I like having a sense of individuality. Even though my clone and myself will become individuals the cloning on, sharing those first few decades of my life with him is just too close.

  "If I was cloned at birth, or maybe earlier in my life, I'd have a different opinion about being cloned. But how early? What's my last date on the cloning? Perhaps at four or five years old. I don't have any distinct memories of my life before I was five (and only one fuzzy memory from when I was four).

  "I can share memories with my wife, my friends, my family, but cloning doesn't sound like sharing my memories. It sounds more like giving them away."

So far, the responses has been quite negative, and understandably so. But here's someone who acknowledges the negatives but discusses the positives:

• From "Balanthalus": "I agree with all of the negatives stated by Dracimas, but I can think of a positive or two for having a clone (or clones). Whenever we make a choice, we cut off countless other choices that could also lead to fulfillment or happiness. Every time I see a play, a concert, a courtroom drama, a political election, etc, I stop and think about all the other things I could be. Some seem to have only one thing that makes them fulfilled and happy, and they work their whole lives toward it. I see a multitude of careers and paths I could take, and I often wonder if the one I am on now is the best one. Alas, though I want to do everything, there are only so many hours in a day and so many years in a life.

  "Maybe if there was another me, we could both persue our choices with more dedication, knowing that in some way our possible contributions to other fields/people would not be lost.

  "I also often think it would be neat to be reincarnated over and over again, each time with the knowledge and skills of the previous life. Next life I would probably go into strict physical conditioning, to see what it is like to be able to coordinate two muscles at once and lift more than five pounds without risking physical injury."

Nope, that's not it, but it's close. More to come.

David J. Parker, on clones, continuing the discussion from last November 4th (scroll down, new readers):

• "You seem to be talking about two different situations. First you make the point that your clone would be a perfect copy of you at the moment of its creation but ever after would have slightly different experiences. Then, however, you say that you'd have to get used to the fact that the clone isn't another person, it's you, and that you'd both have equal rights to the title 'you.' I don't see those two ideas as being mutually consistent. Maybe legally they could both be 'me,' but physically and psychologically, the 'original' would still be 'me' as far as 'I' was concerned, and that other guy would be 'me number 2' or something. Unless we're supposing telepathy of some sorts, I can't accept the fact that I'd ever really think of my clone as 'me' in the deep, psychological sense. 'I' exist somewhere inside my physical body. My seat of consciousness is generally somewhere just behind my eyes. That's where 'I' am. I can't possibly imagine ever being able to accept another being, with another body, as being equal and equivalent to 'me' in that sense.

  "The legalities of the issue is another thing. If you are positing that some government would allow two people to share one identity, and that both of 'us' would have equal rights to use that identity, that opens up a whole can of worms. Which one of us ran that stop sign last night? Which one of us screwed up at work yesterday? When one of us makes a mistake, do both of us have to be punished for it? Let's say my clone goes out and murders somebody one night while 'I' am sleeping. Do we both have to go to jail for it? We both have the same fingerprints, the same DNA. There is no way to objectively prove which one of us did the crime. In fact, it might even be argued that if one of us did it, it's likely that the other one is pre-disposed to do it as well, so it would behoove society to lock us both up.

  "But, when I stop to think about it even more than I already have, I realize that we already have clones living among us. Identical twins share the same DNA, having come from the same egg/sperm pair. Identical twins can be very much alike, or they can be very different from one another in both looks and demeanor. I'd be much more inclined to believe that a me/clone relationship would more likely resemble the relationship between identical twin brothers over time than it would a 'two me' relationship. Sure, identical twins don't share completely identical sets of memories, but they often have nearly identical ones, as twins are usually much closer to each other and much less happy with being apart from each other than normal siblings. And after some time has passed, my clone and I would have diverging sets of memory (again, unless you suppose some form of telepathy, or a 'shared mind' type thing) and would probably develop our own quirks and foibles."

So there's another personal response to such a scenario: an outright rejection of the scenario. And depending on the way this "two bodied person" thing worked, that might even be the best functional solution: so what if you're the same person; treat each other like twins anyway. That brings up the question of what makes two clones that share the same personal identity different from a conventional clone or twin relationship in the first place. I intentionally left that open, and Dave wasn't the only one to pick me up on it. You're all right: all of what I have said on this subject, at various times, probably isn't logically consistent -- but my question is intentionally open-ended, and there is a great deal of unspecified information that would be required to decide definitively how you would act. Dave asserts that unless there was a stronger natural connection, the distinction between "two yous" and simply "clones" is not rational. So what does it mean to share a soul? What if there were, in fact, a telepathic connection between the two yous? What if spiritual pain inflicted on one would reflect in the other?

If two bodies shared a soul and identity, I would think that would be the case. Physical pain wouldn't be shared, because physical pain is a function of the mechanical and electrical processes of the body, and there are two bodies that probably wouldn't be in tight communication. (But who knows? What if feeling pain, physical or not, hit the soul, and not just centers of the physical brain?) But what about emotional or spiritual pain? Were that shared, it raises whole new questions. You couldn't get angry at your other being, lest you be wounded by the heat of your own wrath. If you cut one of you away from friends and family, would you feel the turmoil in the ostracized half, or would that half feel the fulfillment of the company kept by the other? Or would it be a paradoxical mix of the two feelings at once? Human emotions are certainly complicated enough to accommodate such a mix: often one emotion will dominate my spirit, but rarely if ever do I only experience one emotion at a time.

That kind of connection, I think, would change the answers to my question around completely. It may mean that the only way you could be happy is to accept "each other" (for a rejection of one by the other would surely wound both) as both you and learn to live a single life together. Then again, maybe it means there's an opportunity to live two lives -- none among us are ever permitted that particular luxury -- and each "half" would part ways and seek their own lives, despite the fact that spiritual happiness could only come to either if it came to both.

Dave also comments on legal issues that have other ramifications that probably affect most views on the subject: what if the law recognized the "two" of you as a single individual? By extension, that means society would too -- your friends and most likely your family. Even if you could live with yourself, could they live with you? Is one half guilty if the other does something wrong? All good food for thought.

The ideas are flying fast and furious; not all of them make sense in conjunction with each other, but that's ok. Keep them coming.

Continuing the thread about clones started on November 4th (scroll down, new readers), another reader response:

• From "Dracimas": "At first thought it sounds good. Seems like there would all of a sudden be more time in the day to do the things I've always wanted. But you made one point that is inescapable. He would have a separate consciousness. This would mean that he would desire to live his own life. Now if we were identical in every way we would have the same interests, the same strengths, the same handicaps. But this does not mean that we would reason things the same. Think about it. Even with just one of me I can't always figure out the best way to do things. First I'll decide things one way, then often I'll back-pedal and try it another. Another me, no matter how identical, would most likely try something first, that I might be holding as a 'hole card.' This would inevitably cause stress and tension as I would feel that my 'twin' was all wrong in how he set about the task at hand, and he would feel the same about me. This would continue to worsen until either myself or the other myself would come to the realization that no matter how alike we were, we are indeed separate entities and nothing short of death would ever change that.

  "Would I feel uncomfortable in his presence? I think so. A clone may start out with my memories but he would instantly start to build his own completely separate memories, ideas, and viewpoints. I would always feel that he would be judgmental about my decisions and would feel more comfortable to voice his opinions per the unusual bond we would share. And I think he would be just as uncomfortable, always feeling he would need my approval before he could be completely at ease with any decisions he might make. But I think intimate moments with my wife and children would be the hardest.

  "If we were identical, he would be just as attracted to my wife as I am. And it would be perfectly natural for him to turn to her as this would be a part of me that would be produced inside of him. Being the first 'me,' I would have to make it known that she is married to me, and he would have to leave her alone. But paranoia would always be there. I would forever be jealous of the fact that such an exact copy of me could be with her, and she not know that it wasn't me. This of course would strain the relationship between her and me, probably to the breaking point. And I don't think I could bear to lose her for any reason, much less because of a clone.

  "The thought of not being there to meet my daughter's first date, but knowing he was. Or him teaching my son to ride his bike for the first time is more than I can handle. Even if that person were an exact copy of me, I would still not feel his emotion. I don't think I could deal with his participation with my family in my absence.

  "Ideally a clone would make the best business partner. Ideally a clone would make the best baby-sitter. Ideally a clone would make the best best friend. But the world isn't ideal. A clone would eventually want to go off and live his own life. He would not always want to be 'the copy.' Being his own person, a clone would feel that he would always have to prove himself wherever we went together. And I would likewise feel that I had to prove that I was in control over my other self. The bottom line is this. No matter how identical a clone might be, he would still be different. And different means his own person. Not some slave, scapegoat, or tool. He would want his things that he didn't have to share. His own family. His own friends. He would want all the things I have ever wanted, and seeing all that I have accomplished would just let him know that he has the ability inside him to get those things for himself. In short, he would want his own life. Away from my family and my friends. Away from comparison and ridicule. Away from anything that would remind him of the memories he would have of the life he couldn't live. All of which would defeat the purpose of cloning all together."

Dracimas' letter was written before Friday's journal entry, where I clarified exactly what I was supposing -- where there could be no distinction between the "original" you and the clone, and that neither has more right than the other to be you. I emailed Dracimas about it, and his response to that is as follows:

• "In such a case it would be very easy to completely lose sight as to who you really were. Always wondering who was first. Even worse than the chicken and the egg, because both parties would claim to be first and truly believe that to be the case. And they would both, in a sense, be right. I understand the premise you suggested this topic from now. Not that my commentary would change much, but I can see how it would be difficult to maintain a sense of individuality when the 'copy' doesn't know he is a copy. The article I submitted was of course based on the assumption that the clone knew and accepted the fact that he was indeed a clone. But what you offer is chaos. A clone that is completely convinced he is the original...and in fact, is, even though he isn't really.

  "Woah!!! This is getting too deep for my feeble mind."

I can certainly see how the same issues Dracimas brings up pose a problem in either situation. How about you? Would your personality be able to live with two of you? Could you view something your double does as something that happens to you, and take it that way, or would you be jealous of yourself? Could you work together and function in a single life, or would you always be competing with yourself? Would you be shy bringing private sides of who you are out into the open with your double, given that, after all, your double is you too and logically it need be no more difficult than admitting these things to yourself? Why are we afraid to share private information? Fear of betrayal? But why would one part of you betray the other? Anything you do to betray your other half, by definition, just hurts you.

It's all a matter of perspective and whether the perception of the world we have grown up with could be skewed to accommodate this new aspect of reality. Send me more thoughts.

The mail is starting to flow in about yesterdays proposed discussion topic, and I'm excited by the number of thoughtful and insightful responses. Keep them coming!

Because of the length of each one, I will be posting a response or two each day until the discussion dwindles, rather than listing a bunch of responses all at once, as I have done in the past.

• From Morris C. B.: "Well, since my clone would be exactly the same as me in every way, it wouldn't want to do any work, either. Also, it would think the exact same things I do, and go the exact same places I do, and we would constantly battle over who would get to wear that shirt (I never have enough clean clothes). I can just imagine the look on my teachers' face, though, when they're taking attendance and they reach my name.

  "We'd probably fight a lot, since there's only one computer. We'd have to buy an extra pair of glasses. We'd run out of food twice as fast (don't even get me STARTED on the intense battle for 7up). What about living accommodations? We don't have any extra bedrooms at my house, and there is no WAY I'm sharing my room with ANYONE.

  "Some problems arise. What if he claims to be the original me? What happens when I/we fall in love? Since we'd be the same person in two bodies, we'd fall for the same girl. What then? Would we have to work out a system of dating? Could we tell her? Would it be bigamy for the both of us to marry her? Of course, it might get somewhat annoying after a while, with the two of us saying the exact same thing at the exact same time.

  "I go bounding up the stairs frequently, and he would have to do it at the exact same time, and we'd probably end up with injuries; our stairs are not wide enough for two people.

  "What about Christmas and birthdays? Would we have to double the presents? Would he have the same birthday as me? If he was called into existence, an exact copy of my physical body, emotions, thoughts, and memories, on, say October 16, 1993, instead of March 27, 1985, when I was born, would we celebrate his birthday as the 16th of October instead of the 27th of March?

  "There sure are a lot of questions to be answered about this duplicate self thing."

  -Morris Cecil Glalet, Th.D.
  -Morris Cecil Glalet, Th.D.
  Thu 4 Nov A.D. 1999
  Thu 4 Nov A.D. 1999
  (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)

There certainly are a lot of questions to be answered; I'm thinking more and more that an especially insightful author or screenwriter could make a truly remarkable character study based on this bizarre premise.

I'm not so sure you would both say the same things at the same time, however; whenever it is that you become split into two bodies, you would share memories and experiences and expertise, but from then on, your experiences would differ (though admittedly not greatly, as you would still be leading the same life).

Regarding birthdays, the date of cloning may well be observed, but remember that there is no distinction between one you and the other you. Unlike clones that could actually be created with today's technology, the type of cloning I'm speaking of is where there is no distinction between one you and the other you. "Which is the real me?" would be a nonsensical question to ask. You would both have an equal right to be you and therefore both hold to your original, true birthdate. Separate rooms sounds like the sleeping arrangement you'd decide upon, but neither one of you would have more or less of an authoritative claim on your original room than the other: you'd have to decide who gets to sleep where somehow. A flip of the coin would work; holding out for the other to relinquish the room by choice (whichever one was most tired and irritable at the time, probably) is another. I'm sure there are other ways to solve the problem, but I'm not so much interested in how it can be solved as how you would solve it.

At any rate, and excellent answer, exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, and here's another to round out today's journal entry:

• From "MarkusRTK": "Having yourself around you some of the time would be great, but all of the time would be hell. Granted, having a clone of yourself to do half your work would be fabulous, but imagine trying to talk with yourself. It would work like this:

  Clone 1: "Hey, I thought (movie) was a really good movie."
  Clone 2: "Me too. I think (TV show) is really funny."
  Clone 1: "Me too."

  "Etc. The conversation would be stilted like that because there's no conflict, no argument. I would lose my sense of individuality, something I prize very much."

Another good (and humorous) response. Of course, losing your sense of individuality would be a purely psychological perception, as you, the individual, would refer to both of you, a divided whole -- but then, one's sense of individuality is a purely psychological perception anyway, is it not? And therefore I can certainly see how that would be a very real danger -- you'd have to remind yourself constantly that regardless of appearances, that other person you see is not actually another person but you. Over time, it may, depending on the individual, be too much to handle.

Whoa, deep, man.

I am writing in this journal today to commemorate a very special occasion, namely the occasion of not having written in this journal for a while. I'm also bored out of my skull at the moment, plus lack my usual unquenchable drive to develop more stuff for RinkWorks. I updated Book-A-Minute SF/F today, put in an appearance in the RinkWorks Message Forum, posted a reader review in It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad Movie, and did a modest amount of work on an upcoming new RinkWorks feature. So it stands to reason that I feel like a complete lazy bum -- a journal entry might put me over the edge into "actually productive," but I don't think you can count a journal entry such as this one, that doesn't actually accomplish terribly much in and of itself.

Do you wish you had a clone? We often joke during busy days, saying, "I wish there were two of me." But would that really be a good idea? What would you do if you had a clone? Answering that question also answers the question, "What would your clone do if you had one?", which is actually the more important question. Most people wish to have clones so they won't have to work as hard; I won't lie and say that wouldn't be nice, with respect to the drearier of life's tasks, but personally I'd like to have a clone so that I could get more work out of me. Think how much more new RinkWorks content could be produced with two of me!

But I'm getting off topic. Think about what it would be like to have another you around. Not just a clone in the scientific sense but another you with all the rights and privileges that come with being you -- effectively, another physical living entity, identical to you in every way yet with a separate consciousness, that lives your life with you, that you may coordinate (must coordinate) with to live your life. How would you feel or act? Would you feel self-conscious being in front of yourself, or would you be utterly relaxed, as if you were completely by yourself? Would you be jealous when your clone gets something you're entitled to, or view it as a natural part of things? Could you live with yourself? The answers to these questions have a lot to do with understanding yourself and being honest with yourself.

I would absolutely love to hear from you on this. Let's make it a reader question, except I'm not really interested in frivolous answers this time. Tell me honestly what you think -- let your suppositions about such a scenario run absolutely wild. Because of the personal nature of the question, I'd be happy to keep answers anonymous when I post them later if you so desire (but I'll put your name down unless specifically asked not to). Send your thoughts here.

Hmmm. I guess this did turn out to be a productive journal entry.