In science fiction, we often encounter complex issues involving ethics and morality. One of them is the question of whether advanced aliens should create new life forms. This question is not only about respect for life, but also about the consideration of resources, space, the future, and many other aspects.
Many moral positions appear overly simplistic in the face of complex realities. If we rely solely on a single principle, such as "advanced human beings should not be deprived of the right to live", without considering other factors, then we may draw some flimsy conclusions. For example, if we blindly apply this principle, we may conclude that we should create an infinite number of humans as soon as possible and stop doing anything else. In this way, we can focus all our resources on creating life. However, if it came to this point, all the land on Earth would be covered by advanced humans, who were huddled together like upright sardines, unable to move, it would be an unimaginable scenario.
In fact, when facing this kind of problem, we need to consider multiple factors and make trade-offs. The counter-argument put forward by anti-natologists – that it is better to avoid not creating any advanced human beings in the first place in the dilemma of when to stop – is also an example of an oversimplistic binary position.
Considering a race capable of creating advanced humans, it is unlikely that such an ability would have been acquired without considerable thought over the consequences. Thus, the arguments for and against the will are well hammered out before the ability matures. If advanced races were like humans on our planet, their government would create a body to consider the ethics of creating life, a topic that would generate extreme headlines in advanced alien tabloids, pressure groups would support and oppose the issue, advanced alien talk show hosts would spark heated debates among their advanced alien talk show participants, and so on. Various arguments for and against the will were heard, some of which were clearly nonsense.
So if your book assumes that the topic will be debated for the first time by two of these characters, then I suspect some readers might say "like". It's like what we see here on Earth, where people tend to have different perspectives and positions when faced with complex moral issues. Some may support the creation of new life forms because they see the potential and possibilities in them, while others may oppose it because they fear that it will have a negative impact on existing ecosystems and human society.
There is no absolute right answer to this question. We need to consider various factors in a comprehensive manner, and conduct in-depth thinking and discussion. This requires critical thinking and multiple perspectives to better understand and respond to this complex issue.