| >to treat your offspring as a machine to be engineered rather than raised raising is engineering, just very slow and with very limited results just because of the very limited toolset currently available. Look how parents using hormones and blockers, etc. - that is about max engineering available today and they do it because it benefits their children (i'm making pure engineering-wise point, and i'm not qualified nor have any intention to discuss whether it is really beneficial or not) >why bother with flesh in the first place, why not regard the AI itself as the offspring? The people replacing flesh children with AI would naturally be weeding their DNA out thus leading to the significant share of the population still preferring flesh ones. >he distance between them and their parents would necessarily be as severe parents want their kids to succeed, to do better than the parents. It is a biological imperative (as otherwise your DNA is weeded out by the one's who do get their children to do better, and thus those have been and will be the majority of the population). The first-gen immigrant parents working as say janitors and their college kids - huge difference and the parents are happy for it. And don't forget that the parents here are themselves would already be the N-th generation of improvement, much ahead of the rest of the population. >with any one of those enhancements before all of them with any one, yet not all. Being a test subject for one feature is very different than having a package of those features. >making any gap much smaller in practice than you anticipate. in addition the test subjects may be prevented from propagating their DNA. (Cetaganda from the Vorkosigan saga :) |