At 09:28 PM 10/27/98 -0800, Hal wrote:
>
>Suppose a ship is being launched to the stars, at relatively slow speeds,
>which will take centuries to make the journey. Even with longevity and
>hibernation, it is likely that children will be born, just as have been
>born on other migrations. This is part of the historical pattern of life,
>and doesn't seem to raise new ethical problems.
>
>Bringing kids into such an environment dooms them to life in space
>as certainly as biologically adapting them would. If we accept the
>historical precedent for parents to have children in environments which
>limit their choices, shouldn't we accept that modifying them is equally
>permissible?
This is different from the case as described by Pizulli. The legless people may be well adapted for a space voyage. But they may not want to go on the voyage. Then, they either must compelled or conditioned into going (both of which I find ethically unacceptable), or they will stay on Earth and find themselves physically disadvantaged.
In one case, given that you're going on the trip, you are maximizing your engineered children's choices and abilities. In the other you are reducing them, perhaps drastically (if they are forced to go). So I see these as essentially different cases from a moral point of view.
Max
http://www.maxmore.com
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies
President, Extropy Institute:
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org