message 0054

• The Ethics of Azi production

>From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin>
>Subject: CherryhList: AZI Ubermaunch
>Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 9:37:54 GMT

> So I'd say that all notions of gender are left out
> of azi tape, and the azi are essentially 'clean slate humans' who can have
> anything their designers wish written on their surface.
	It is one of the more chilling/unsettling aspects of Cyteen is
the whole mentality underlying it all. We have Resune quite literally,
and acknowledgedly, creating the human species of tomorrow. Like the
project Justin was working on. They don't explicitly say too much about
it. However he keeps testing stability to "50 generations". I.e. they
are not just talking about feeding tape to AZI that teaches them how
to do things. They are also teaching them how to raise children and
how to pass skills on to them. And to their children. For at least
50 generations. Gehenna was just a "little experiment" of this sort
of things.
	You could consider this branching out from "Sociological Engineering"
(I.e. tapes for AZI) to "Sociological Architechure" (constructing AZI
societies). It is not unreasonable to assume that it could be done.
I.e. a self-replicating stable societised culture could be constructed
and planted somewhere to grow. However:
	*Would they be "human"?* Biologically they are just as human as
you and I. We are all "cultrualy programmed" to a certain extent as well.
We learn what we are taught and (generally) stay within the norms encouraged
by society. Such an AZI culture seems to me to be so very artificial. How
do they advance? Can you build in creative adaption without introducing
instability? One might assume so. If not then you end up with a rigid,
monolithic society that would be devastated by any general change.  So lets
say you have this dynamic, stable, humane culture. Are they human or
are they machines? If they are human then do they not have a superior
culture? Which brings us to:
	*Is it all ethical?* Resune creates humans in their own image,
with their own "improvements". They are all healthier, more socially
adjusted, and good looking (1). In short, they are better than their
predecessors. Is this "extended evolution"? Is it "playing god"? Is
it morally right to take on the role of The Creator or is it just
primitive superstision that I might even think to criticise such a
laudable benefit to society?
	When you first read Cyteen you get caught up in the morals
of the character's direct actions. Whether you would consider each 
character's actions right r wrong. When you step back and look at
the whole thing from afar (Holistic Sociology? :-) that are larger
web of moral tensions is revealed. I once heard C.J.Cherryh's works
describe as "space opera". Bullshit. This is literature.

Gotta logout. I leave as an exercise :
	1. Compare and contrast Union's concept of "Specials" with
the American concept of "gifted students" (or equivelent). What are
its affects on society? What are its affects on the individuals?
	2. Develop on your arguments above and write a speech to be
given to the Union parliment either for or against state sponsoring
of Resune's "Immortality Project" for specials.


(1) Talking with some friends about their travels in Sweden they remarked
how most of the women there were extremely attractive ("Statuesque"). Yet
they ooohed, and ahhhed over one of them who was shortish with mousey
brown hair. "She is so exotic!" One wonders what perceptions of beauty
an AZI culture of Resune-perceived-beauty would have.