It's a sobering thought that new scientific advances may soon put within reach of our social engineers the means to redistribute benefits previously beyond their grasp.  The quest to level new playing fields will march along on the coattails of technology, propelled by the complaints of the underprivileged to enact equal rights measures.  Certainly it's unfair that some people might be smarter than others; and the school system has made strides toward putting hurdles in the path of the gifted student, while lowering the bar for students as a group.

What will happen when the technology is commonly available to level the playing fields of intelligence,  physical attractiveness, athletic ability, immunity from disease or undesirable characteristics?  There are good arguments to support the fact that such technologies are not bad in themselves.  They may prove good and useful, and their proponents may have the highest order of motivation.  Will such technologies prove immune from legislative use and control?  That seems highly unlikely, even impossible.  Existing technologies and advances have not.

Legislative controls largely determine use of broadcast frequencies, medical care is increasingly subject to regulatory discretion, and public education has evolved into a full fledged proving ground for applied socialist theory in many states.  Industries founded on new technologies are increasingly regulated as their use becomes common, such as telephone and internet service providers.  Once the legislators smell enough revenue or political contentiousness around a new product or service, legislative proposals will abound.  New interest groups will spring up to advocate for equal access to new technologies, or to restrict access equally, or to ensure they are used in certain ways and not in others.

Perhaps one's comfort level with such technologies depends less on whether one sees them as being potentially good, than one's concern about how they may be controlled or imposed upon future generations.  These concerns are legitimate ethical problems, and to dismiss them as Luddism is to have turned a deaf ear to the questions our grandchildren might someday pose of us.  If we had the ability to see the outcomes of alternate courses of history, how much wiser we should all be.  Regardless of what one thinks of nuclear weapons, we don't know how differently historical events would have turned out without them.  All we can do is speculate, or wonder, or pontificate.

The problem, of course, is not that things are good or bad in themselves; guns, drugs, technologies, beliefs or personal choices are neutral in themselves whether legal or illegal.  It is usage, human decision, that determines whether something is good or bad under a given set of conditions.  The further removed the decision making process is from the person who must carry out an action, the wider the margin of error and the less culpability falls squarely on one set of shoulders.  What an ideal situation for government gone awry; perpetual creation of new sets of problems for government to address.  When does the buck really stop when it's perpetually shuffled between departments?

There are signs of hope that people are learning not to see institutional control as the answer to every problem; the growth of mediation services, the homeschooling movement, the burgeoning interest in alternative news sources via the internet.  Little actions by lots of people eventually add up to a powerful movement.  May we show enough foresight to keep the interests of coming generations in mind, unlike the politicians who care only for the next electoral cycle.  May we always examine the bathwater for the stray baby before tossing it out, especially if it's cloudy water.  May we have the courage to ask ourselves honest, hard questions while we still have time to contribute to our old age peace of mind funds.  And may we never forget that we can only protect our own freedoms by respecting the choices of others.