Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do Electric Sheep Dream of Civil Rights?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the robbing-peta-to-pay-petr dept.

holy_calamity writes "Hot on the heals of a UK government report that predicted robots would demand citizens rights within fifty years, an Arizona state lawyer has suggested that sub-human robots should have rights too. Harming animals far below human capabilities is thought unethical — would you ever feel bad about kicking a robot dog? And can we expect militant campaigners to target robot labs as they do animal labs today?"

4 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Fake by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No doubt the first "robot" to demand civil rights will be deliberately programmed to pretend sentience and to demand civil rights.

    1. Re:Fake by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have never even met an animal rights activist, and I can easily see that you are about as clued in on this topic as a turnip.

      The animals' rights movement is based on the idea that humans, having greater intelligence than all other species as well as the intangible quality we call "sentience", has a responsibilty for the welfare of the world, and its contents. All animals only seek resources that are needed for survival. Our desire for things over and above this, such as widescreen TVs and a bigger SUV than our neighbour, indicates that there is a fundamental difference between humans and other species.

      Based on the greater burden each human places on the Earth relative to individuals of other species, human civilisation has recognised a need to act responsibly. Monkeys do not create modifications to their trees capable of polluting the entire forest into a desert, and whales don't create oil slicks. Our ability to affect far more than just our immediate surroundings and co-opt the forces of chemistry, physics and biology to our own endsis what gives rise to this moral responsibility. The fact that we can understand the very concept of "morality" is what gives us the moral responsibility to use it.

      "Management" you say? So I can transport and kill them in the most economically efficient manner I please despite causing them great physical pain? The idea that a dumb animal does not need to be treated with respect because it is incapable of vocalising the concept is laughably stupid. I humbly suggest you refrain from using terms like "intellectually bankrupt". *walks away mumbling something about a pot and a kettle*

      --
      I hate printers.
  2. Priorities, priorities... by MidVicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's so good to see that the delegation of priorities regarding Human Rights has now moved Robot one notch above Dark Skinned Human.

    Thankfully, it's still one notch below Canine.

  3. Poor argument by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A three weeks old baby doesn't understand the concept of rights either, yet it is protected by them. Unless you want to increase the legal abortion age to around two years after birth, you have to find a better argument.

    A similar argument can be made with severely retarded and some kind of insane people.