Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > > Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > > > ...at which point (including time to travel to those probes), they
> > > > become part of the latest-generation wave. Assuming it's not less
> > > > resource-costly to scrap or ignore 'em, in which case any "colonists"
> > > > on said probe would be rendered obsolete by being behind the leading
> > > > edge of colonization.
> > >
> > > And if the conlonist are human or equivalent with their own plans,
> > > rights (presumably) and so on? You hopefully would not casually
> > > "obsolete" them.
> > But I'm not there. I'm irrelevant to this. It's up to the colonists
> > with the advanced tech on the scene to decide whether they wish to spend
> > the resources to aid their fellow, but lower tech, colonists. There
> > could be any number of political considerations, and thus, no guarantee
> > that those on the first wave would or would not be "obsoleted" and left
> > behind...or even "scrapped", their lives snuffed out so their bodies and
> > equipment may serve the faster (and probably more powerful) latecomers.
> Actually, "you" are there. Or whatever you and others of your kind
> become. The decision will be up to us at some point. And seeing it
> that way brings home the fact that intelligent beings will face some
> moral, ethical questions when they run into this situation.
> Now it might well be that nothing could be done due to the constraints
> present. But you don't irrevocably "scrap" living sentiences unless you
> have no morals at all. Upgrade maybe, but not scrap.
What if said sentiences had made it their life's mission to destroy you
and everything you held dear, should you and they ever meet? This would
make upgrading them a dangerous propsition. If, further, resources were
such that only you or they could survive (say, due to an unforseen
accident), either you or they would likely be scrapped...
> > Scary, maybe. But, barring any physical requirements for specific
> > societal values among advanced civilizations, there's no way to prove
> > that the good or the bad must happen.
> Values and morals are not simplistically dependent only on physical
> requirements. We choose the values we live by although some part of
> what we value is determined to some extent by the types of creatures we
> are. But we are in the process of re-writing the types of creatures we
> are. So again, it is up to us what we decide to be and why.
Granted, physical requirements aren't the sole determinant of morals.
However, I am not aware of any other determinant that absolutely forbids
any given set of morals from being practiced over the long term. That
being the case, I do not know of a way to enforce these desired morals
on a group of settlers who may or may not have any connection to, or
even knowledge of, myself. That is what I wished to convey.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT