Steven Umbrello

Mirko Garasic (2021) argued that space travel and, by extension, the colonization of other planets could morally justify using technologies and interventions capable of profoundly modifying the characteristics of astronauts and future Martian generations. According to Garasic, however, the fact that space interventions such as human (bio)enhancement or reproductive technologies such as artificial wombs may be morally justified does not mean that they are morally acceptable technologies to be used on Earth as well. Garasic’s thesis is that we should resist the temptation to establish or reinforce a continuity between the ethical standards that apply to space travel and those that apply on Earth because what applies in space (or on other planets) does not necessarily apply to our planet. Garasic argues that in space, genetic enhancement interventions are morally acceptable, as they are essential for survival. On Earth, however, we can survive even without any form of (bio)enhancement. In a previous article (2022), we presented several arguments against Garasic’s thesis regarding the exceptional morality of what is morally acceptable in space. In this article, we examine and reply to Garasic (2022), showing that he fails to defend his thesis from the objections we previously advanced. Garasic’s mistakes are: (1) assuming nature (and consequently what is “natural”) as a normative point of reference which allows establishing what is moral and what is not moral; (2) defending the choices concerning reproduction as an insufficiently demanding and therefore unsatisfactory moral principle (according to Garasic we should not bring into the world people who can have a quality of life or a condition of well-being superior to mere survival); and finally (3) of not explaining clearly what it means to defend a principle of moral exceptionalism for space travel (Garasic does not explain whether this position applies to any behavior, for which what on Earth is a virtue, in space is a vice or is not a general principle, but he makes this case only for enhancement and reproductive technologies). Through our analysis, we not only refute Garasic’s position but also show that any attempt to address space travel issues as “special” moral issues faces several difficulties and, ultimately, is doomed to failure.

This paper focuses on stakeholder identification as per the value sensitive design (VSD) approach applied to the context of quantum technologies (QT). We provide two comprehensive lists of stakeholders as starting points for VSD researchers and practitioners. These lists encompass a diverse range of organizations, including private companies, government agencies, NGOs, partnerships, and professional/trade organizations. Our aim is to facilitate the recognition, legitimation, and understanding of stakeholder interactions in the development of QT. These stakeholder lists can serve as a foundation for designing and implementing policies and strategies that promote the ethical and responsible development of QT, considering the values and interests of various stakeholders. Furthermore, these lists can enable empirical and technical studies on specific QT innovations using an ethics-by-design approach like VSD. Overall, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of the QT landscape and highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration in shaping its future.