Slashdot Mirror
The Not-Quite-Human Rights Movement
An anonymous reader writes "Yale University hosted a conference on transhumanism which organizers say served to
coalesce transhumanism from a subculture to a 'movement.' They're even sketching out where the role of violence becomes legitimate in the quest to become a cyborg.
But most of the talk was of peaceful integration and continuation of democratic values."
done purposely now to tie in with Terminator 3? :)
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
I was afraid they would discuss something stupid!
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Any decent cyborg could simply destroy anyone who disagrees with them, thus ensuring their status as a sentient super being with power over all mankind. No self-respecting super-being would be seen dead in a namby-pamby meeting to talk about rights! Wannabes!
Freedom is irrelevant
Choice is irrelevant
You will escort us to sector 001 where we will begin assimilation of your species. Resistance is futile.
I think this is quite similar to the Segway, aren't we jumping the gun a bit? Trying to enact legislation before this even becomes widespread?
It is great to discuss this sort of stuff in groups and think about what they could do in the future, but to seriously believe that they would need to make sure laws could handle this before anymore than a handful of people are "cyborgs" (there is only one person that I know of that has actual shit inplanted in his body)?
It seems a little excessive. Maybe as implants begin to become more commonplace (I can't see this happening for at least 15-20 years) we should start thinking about it, but until then, how about we try to enact useful legislation (re-opening our freedoms, ending the corporate stranglehold on consumers, forcing competition in corporate markets, etc).
Yay for timewasters!
If we make these limbs much, much better - are we to expect anything different?
Yes! That's basically the whole point. Currently, even the best artificial limbs are a poor substitute for the genuine article. People get artificial limbs because they have lost their natural limbs, and have no other choice -- we do not hate or shun these people any more than we hate or shun people with any other disability. However, if artificial limbs become far superior to natural limbs, people will be able to choose whether they want their (perfectly healthy) natural limbs removed in favor of mechanical ones. At that point you will certainly have fear and loathing between the people who undergo the procedure (the superior beings) and the people who don't (the all-natural people).
As for your further point, it's not the role of bioethics departments to sell stem cell research. It's their role to think about the consequences for society of any new innovatio, and sometimes they might not agree with the techies.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Hmmm. I was going to rate this a troll.
."
But then I noticed -- maybe it's just my imagination -- but the cyborg's seems bigger than the human's.
No wonder it "coalesced" into a movement. Before, it was just a few random, scattered geeks. Then, when they were running with the idea, they said to themselves "Hey . . . if I could get a bigger, stronger, artificial bicep, then what about my . .
And suddenly, it's a movement.
Very good points that s20451 made.
I suppose I would qualify as a Cyborg; I am hearing-impaired and have a Cochlear Implant. Social-wise, it's kind of a mixed bag. On one side of the coin, people in general are fascinated by the prospect of restoring hearing that was lost and the very idea of having a biological implant in my head. On the other side, however, the Deaf community generally shuns them as their equivalent of "tools of Satan." I feel that in the decades, even centuries, to come, such divisions will stil exist on this topic. It's unavoidable today and will be unavoidable tomorrow.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." - Steve Wright
Damn right.
One of these days, we're going to look at ourselves, our families, our friends and neighbors, and realize that all of us have various synthetic bits (almost said "metal bits," but there's no guarantee that metals will be the materials of choice -- and anyway, "metal bits" brings something else entirely to mind) and other bits that are genetically engineered, and that we're all living longer, happier, healthier lives as a result -- and it won't seem extraordinary; it will be just the way it is. And the current "bioethics" debates will seem precisely as meaningful as arguments over whether 'tis best to lower a patient's level of bodily humours by bleeding, or raise them by fortifying him with red wine.
I'm sure by then the Luddites will have found something else to bitch about, though.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I understand that, in a general sense, we are all cyborgs (glasses, fillings, pacemakers, etc.), but I can't think of any civil rights issues in these cases. So, as soon as someone starts getting oppressed for having their arm replaced with a particle cannon, I'll be the first to march on Washington, holding a big "Particle Guns for Freedom !" sign. Until this technology actually becomes available, though, the cyborg rights people might as well throw their support behind the Tooth Fairy. At least they might get some free teeth out of that one.
>|<*:=
Intelligent machines will be given the full rights of humans once they demonstrate their abilities and begin flexing their power. Despite the moral underpinnings of our various societies, groups that have been historically excluded have fought, bought, or protested their way into equality.
Who knows how long it will take for computers to be as capable as we are. However, once a computer or group of computers becomes intelligent and wealthy enough to hire a legal team (not to mention a software development team), things are going to get very interesting.
We should not wait for our creations to force this issue. It would be better to have a framework in place before everyone begins to panic (including the intelligent machines).
- JML
In my, admittedly limited experience from taking a semester of ASL and having "deaf culture" lessons intermingled with that, what you're saying doesn't seem to be the actual issue.
People who subscribe to "deaf culture" seem to have constructed a world-view in which deafness isn't a biological flaw, but rather a "variation". They promote the view that a diminished or absent ability to hear is a healthy variant of the human biological norm. This is, I assume, a social reaction to the idea of being "flawed" or broken, and stems, I am sure, from the fact that by and large deaf people are capable of fully interacting with human society, so long as concessions are made for their lack of hearing.
But now its gone far beyond that, and in some cases (such as this) its gone to ridiculous extremes. Instead of being ostracized by hearing (aka "normal") humans, they ostracize people who recognize that deafness is not the human norm, and actually use technology to fix it.
It saddened (and angered) me when I first encountered this. Deaf people of this opinion think that folks who want to "fix" them just don't "get it", and that we as hearing people (as they call it) are just some sort of other normal variation on homo sapiens. As if the ability to hear is akin to hair color or something equally as irrelevant to human functioning.
I wonder if the same people would consider other birth defects "normal variations", and acceptable.
Latin, of course, spawned off the "romance languages": Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French, and Romanian, plus some smaller non-national languages and dialects.
Cow: Beef (Boeuf)
Sheep: Mutton (Mouton)
Pig: Pork (Porc)
Chicken: Poultry (Poulet)
This is also true to a much lesser extent of the Roman invasion of Britain a thousand years earlier or so, but it didn't last nearly as long. So, while English picked up some Latin-derived vocabulary, it is not a Latin-based language structurally any more than Greek, Russian, or any other non-romance language that assimilated some Latin words over time, or that you could say almost any major language in the world today that has assimilated a lot of English vocabulary is "English-based."
>
> And suddenly, it's a movement.
Walk into the shrink wherever you are, just walk in, say "Shrink -- you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant" -- and walk out.
You know, if one Slashdotter, just one Slashdotter does it, they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two Slashdotters do it -- in harmony -- they may think that they're both trollin' and they won't take either of them.
And if THREE Slashdotters do it! Can you imagine three Slashdotters walkin' in, singin' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaurant" and walkin' out? They might think it's a HACKER CONSPIRACY.
And can you imagine FIFTY Slashdotters a day? I said FIFTY Slashdotters a day -- walkin' in, singin ' a bar of "Cyberdyne Restaruant" and walkin' out? Friends, they may think it's a movement, and that's what it is.
The Cyberdyne Systems T-800 Model 101 Trans-Humanist Movement!
And all you gotta do to join it is to mod me (+1, Funny) the next time the mod points come 'round on the thread view. With feelin'.
You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant (or be an Alice!)
You can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne Restaurant
Implants, fuel cells, and neural hacks,
Muscle over bones made outa railroad track,
Oh, you can mod any parts you want at Cyberdyne restaurant...
Well, there already has been a test case of cyborg discrimination. Whether you sympathize with the plight of Prof. Steve Mann at the hands of Air Canada, or think otherwise, the fact is that certain regulations have revealed the potential for discrimination on the basis of technological augmentation of the body.
The specifics of Mann v. Air Canada are not as important as the over-arching issues the case raises. Mann's case cannot be argued on its constitutionality, as there are no constitutional protections against discrimination of cyborgs, or those who are technologically enhanced. However, it was obvious to those of us who saw Mann immediately after the Air Canada incident that the removal of his cyborg accoutrements resulted in significant physical distress. He was unable to maintain balance, properly respond to ambient temperature fluctuations, judge distance for grasping objects, among other physical infirmaties. The symptoms lasted for a little over a month, after which, his body slowly reacclimatized to its non-cyborg state.
The argument cannot be made on the evidence that his wearable computers, and their intrinsic biofeedback mechanisms, were merely fashion accessories or affectations. Because his autonomous body functions had adjusted to Mann's cyborg enhancements, they could rightly be considered part of his (cyborg) biology, necessary to maintain his normal health. In legalese, Mann's cyborg enhancements differed from MP3 players and portable computers "in kind," not merely "in degree." Hence, one could legally consider that Air Canada's security checks should have changed to provide adequate screening without being invasive and destructive. The fact that those with cochlear implants or heart pacemakers are not required to turn off and remove those cyborg enhancements, but Mann was, indicates discrimination.
I am supporting neither Mann nor Air Canada in making these observations. I am pointing out that we already have an important case that raises the issue of the regulatory imposition on those who have technological enhancements to their bodies. The examination of the fundamental issues and the questions they raise is most appropriate to be done now.
Here's what we need to tell people:
When you're on your deathbed, only days or hours from kicking the bucket, will you regret your opposition to stem cell research during the early 21s century, that might have let you happily live another 20 or 30 years?
Nobody cares unless it directly affects them. We need to convince people that it will directly affect them.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Today's geeks are already into sharing in many ways: source, ideas, music, etc. Becoming Borg will just take things to a much higher level.
The one thing I am not so sure about is how Linus fits in as "the queen"...
To be transhuman is to take your life in your own hands and shape yourself (mind or body) to your will. It's body builders, disabled people moving beyond their limitations, people who develop their mind to do incredible things, transsexuals, etc. Transhuman is basically anyone moving beyond what has been given to them by nature. It is really a different mindset, one where you really push yourself to be what you want to be. Over the last few years I've been doing this myself. I'm going thru a sex change; I went from geeky guy to a lesbian techie girl. The process isn't just a shaping of the body, but of the mind also. I examined all the things I hated about myself and have been endeavoring to toss them out and replace them with stuff I wanted.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Leeches are used in some wound treatment techniques, yes. But they're not used to treat systemic diseases, which is what they were generally used for way back when. There is such a thing as therapeutic phlebotomy, but it's very rare; in my entire ten-year medical career, I saw all of two (2) patients who were receiving it. To assume that bloodletting was used because "they recognized that something worked" is to give the medicine of the day -- superstitious, dogmatic, and based almost entirely on religion -- way too much credit, IMO.
Alcohol, yeah -- but again, the idea of "raising the constitution" with red wine specifically was based on the superstitious association of red wine with blood, not on any observation of cause and effect. There actually is a lot of folk medicine that is based on cause and effect (willow bark tea, say) but it was traditionally practiced by local healers, not doctors. The blood'n'wine medicine that was the standard of care from the Middle Ages through the early 19th c. was essentially useless.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Great now I'll have to wait even longer to get through airport security as those Cyborgs get screened manually. Crap.
The real question is, what is freedom?
This is actually two good questions packed into one. Philosophers and political theorists usually draw a distinction between political freedom and free will. Some, but not all, think you have to have free will in order to qualify for political freedom. Some think the two issues are entirely unrelated.
I would define freedom as being able to do what one wants.
This is not a bad start, but it turns out to be an unsatisfactory definition in several ways. Let's take political freedom first.
Political Freedom
But, of course, freedom is not absolute. If I want to kill someone, I do not have the freedom to do this.
Right, and in general if you want to do something that involves someone else, or someone else's property, then you have to get that person's consent first, otherwise you actions would infringe on his freedom. Indeed, many poltical theorists have thought that political freedom is not so much a matter of being able to do what you want to do, as a matter of being free from interference from others, unless you grant your consent. In other words you are politically free if other people are not allowed to mess around with you, or yours, without your permission.
Given this view of political freedom the question of whether an individual qualifies for freedom depends on whether that individual is capable of consenting. Still many philosophers think that in order to give consent one has to be able to make free choices.
Free Will
I would define freedom as being able to do what one wants.
It turns out that one of the most widely held philosophical views about free will is pretty close to this, but it gets stated a little differently. Compatibilists think that your choice is free just if you made that choice because you wanted to.
Robots have no desires, needs, wants. A robot would only do what a human has programmed it to do.
This is by no means obvious. One view of human desires is that they are just drives that result from eons of evolution. When we do what we want to do, we are just doing what evolution has programed us to do. Even so, it is still what we want, and thus the choices that result are still free. Likewise, even if robots choose only as we programe them to, so long as they doing what they want (and we want) them to do, they are free.
A somewhat more sophisticated view would be that a genuine artificial intelligence would have to be able to think about what it ought to do (i.e. engage in practical or moral reasoning), as well as thinking about strictly factual questions (what philosopher's tend to call theoretical reasoning). If a robot could think about what it ought to want, and modify its own desires accordingly then, when it acted on those self-regulated desires, it would be acting freely.