"Anyway, I am not arguing for or against patents here; only copyright."
Then you shouldn't have used 'IP' in your first posts. 'Intellectual Property' encompasses ALL of the already mentionned subjects, such as copyright, trademark and patents.
I agree, however, that copyrights impose less of a problem concerning monopolies then do patents. It still limits inherent freedoms, however - freedom of speech and expression comes to mind. These restrictions are allowed, with the premise that it stimulates innovation. It's true that I don't recall any studies that researched only the influence of copyright. however, it should be noted that the same basic arguments are used for copyrights as well as for patents, and at least in the latter case, they have been shown to be not valid.
This makes the 'obviousness' that your theory is correct when it is about copyright rather less obvious. Since we came from having no copyright, to having copyright with as reason it will stimulate creativity, it is for you (or those arguing for it) to prove that it, in fact does or did. Just saying 'it is obvious' is not enough. It's not for me to demonstrate it is NOT stimulating creativity, since the very reason that it was allowed, was under the pretext that it did or would.
"OK, this is econ 101 here: Competition forces producers to do as much as they possibly can with the money they earn. If they do not, some other company will beat them. As long as competition exists, more money equates to greater quantity and better quality."
Then monopolies must be the most inventive and novel producers of high-qualitative products. They earn huge amounts of money, and, according to your theory, they, thus, use all that money to make even more and better products.
As you said yourself; Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft are prime examples. You claim that other factors come into play...why, indeed, that was my point, that your theory was an oversimplification. If your theory with your 3 points were *inherently* true, then those 3 companies would have been the most productive producers of high-quality products in the history of the USA. The fact that they didn't use all their huge amount of IP-revenue for making better innovative products, on itself demonstrates that the supposed inherent logic and 'obviousness' that those who earn much, will work harder, is not correct.
That said, why I personally wouldn't mind a complete overhaul of all IP, I'm well aware this is not very pragmatic to expect that this will happen. More realistically, I think shortening copyright will be hard enough to accomplish, so it's not like I'm a die-hard everything-or-nothing anti-IP zealot.
I don't even think it will be possible to abolish patents, because they are so well entranched by now, even with international agreements and the lot. Alas. I would *really* like an overhaul of that system, however. And I sure as hell am going to do everything I can to prevent software patents in Europe. This madness of corporate greed and articifial monopolies has to stop.
I still think your claim lacks substance that only IP can provide enough innovation and qualitative products, or prevent creators from starving and what not - but the point is rather moot, in a pragmatical sense.
"Actually, ignore my other post. I have a more concise argument."
Nah! You don't come of that easily! I did not ignore it, so you can't brush of my wounterarguments neither!:-)
"You seem to think there is no evidence that copyright increases the quality and quantity of information available. Consider this argument:"
Not only do I think that, it is susbstantiated by the (rather few, admitedly) research that has been done. I provided a link in one of my other posts. Feel free to post a link to a study that DOES indicate that copyright (well, it was 'IP', actually) is the only way to stimulate innovation, and that any other way would produce less quality and quantity. Otherwise, we could be quarreling about how wrong eachother opinions are the whole night.
Your 3 points are a basic argument for all those that are pro-IP (not that that on itself means it's not true, ofcourse), but it is not substantiated by observation or research. Moreover, it is fairly simple to demonstrate that it is not correct, probably because it is an oversimplification. I think you mistake for what is theorethical possible, to that what is likely to happen (and happening, in most cases) For instance, according to your theory, a monopoly would provide the best quality and the most quantity: it has huge revenues, thus, it has more possibilities to make more and better products, exactly following your reasoning.
In practise, however, this turns out not to be true. The main fallacy here is that because you earn more, you *are* going to work harder. Certainly, one CAN use the money to keep improving your products... Mostly, the contrary is true however: people and companies who already earn vast amounts of money on IP they already posses, become complacent and have little incentive to invest in expensive R&D. They'd rather spend their money on sueing others and keeping their comfortable position by *(ab)using* their IP against possible competitors, instead of developing new ways in which to outperform those competitors.
Thats why, almost without exeption, monopolists are bad: bad for customers, bad for the economy, bad for society as a whole, and even bad for the company itself, in the long run. If your theory would be the whole story, then monopolists would be the most productive, qualitative highest producers of goods anywhere, since they adher to all your points. Obviously, this is not the case.
"Let me revise my statement: Without copyright, for the majority of software products, it is impossible to earn nearly as much money as could be earned with copyright. And that directly translates to less and lower-quality software."
Well, that's something else all together. You are fully right that IP-owners like the RIAA and co can make insane amounts of money. Nowhere does it state that IP laws are there to get fantastic rich, however. If your point was, that you can, potentially, make far more money without doing much exept sitting on your IP, then when you wouldn't have IP and would have to continue to be creative and compete on a free market, then I concede that point.
I do not agree with your last conclusion, however. There are literally thousands of free software packages (check out a complete distro, for instance). No doubt you can claim there are even more that are closed, but that was just my point when saying it's a non-argument because it points to something it has made true itself. IP has entrenched all off society so much, that you can't go without it. Strictly spoken, even most freeware makes use of copyright, for instance. It does not make an argument for claiming that is proof that without IP, there would be less software.
"There are hundreds of OSS projects out there that deserve those donations far, far more than Freenet does, and yet people donate to Freenet because they're excited by the ability to get copyrighted material for free."
Even if that were true, does that, in any way, refute the claim that coders *can* get payed, even for free software?
"Cop out. My whole point is that there is no way."
Dude, I just *told* you different ways that creators could earn money. It's just that you don't agree with it, or think they should get even more.
Let's repeat:
As a coder, you can earn money by: working on a tailored software for a specific need (most earnings are done this way already, btw), you can create something that people want to support (projects like Freenet and others, that are supported by donations), you can work for a compay that offers free products, but earns by giving support, you can go work for companies that pay you on free software, because they see an added value for their hardware products (like IBM), etc.
Now, is it possible or not to earn money in another way, then selling your products, because it's backed by a state-given monopoly? Conclusion, yes, there is.
Will all developers be able to earn their bread this way? Difficult to say, but even with IP, not all developpers can earn their bread even today, so its a moot point. Will it be possible to get insanely rich , like some could when using IP laws? Probably not, but nowhere is it stated that that was the purpose of IP anyway.
And yes, IP IS a monopoly, even when you deny it. You're counterarguments are only subject to the - indeed less restrictive in that area - domain of copyright. However, you use IP, and that involves ALL intellectual property rights, including trademark and patents. And with patents it is more then clear it IS a monopoly. I believe it even states so literaly in the legal framework of the court (at least in my country).
"The claim is an intuitively obvious fact of economics. You have somehow convinced yourself otherwise, likely to rationalize your desire to steal copyrighted works."
The claim is neither intuitive, nor a fact, nor based on inherent economic laws, as history and even contemporary examples have shown us, and still do - something I have repeatedly pointed out already. If it's so factual, please give a link to a study or researchpaper that confirms your claims. Nowhere, in a scientific study that I have seen, did it indicate what you claim is such an obvious fact, which is more then telling on itself. I would claim the oposite; that you have somehow convinced yourself otherwise, likely to rationalize your desire to earn money in a way that would not be possible if it was really competing in a
"One of the definitions of theft is: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". (We can engage in pointing dictionaries, but it only illustrates the fact that older definitions simply reflect the time in which they were forged.)"
One may indeed. And btw, not only older definitions, but ALL definitions reflect the time in which they were forged. Note, however, that by your own definition, it isn't theft. When you copy something, you duplicate it, you don't take it away.
"When copied that value, that end result, was then stolen, without consent or payment. If it didn't have value, it wouldn't have been taken."
False in more then one way. First of all, it's not because something is 'taken', that it has value. Secondly, it's not taken, it's copied, which means duplicated. Thirdly, the end result is not stolen; it is still in the possesion of the musicians. It is strange you seem to have so much trouble understanding the difference. If you bake a bread and I take it away, then you could sue me for theft. If you bake a bread and somehow I make a replica of your bread and eat that, you could not sue me for theft.
This would be the case regardless of the effort and time you put into baking your bread.
"So question 1: Why should the thief benefit from the artist's or writer's or developer's work, and the artist or writer or developer not? "
This seems a rethorical question. First of all, it's not a thief if he didn't steal anything, so dramatising it doesn't make your point stronger. Secondly, who said the creator can't benefit from it? Whether he succeeds in benefiting is another matter, but no one would argue he can't try. You seem to imply that people can only earn money by using their IP, which is blatantly untrue. There are numerous ways in which musicians, coders and other creators can try to make a living of what they produce. I already gave possible examples in another post, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149042&cid=124 97109.
That post in large part answers your second question too.
"You make one of the standing arguments that people who download music would not buy it otherwise. Perhaps, but I seem to recall that in the vinyl age, when such could not be copied, that kids almost always managed to find the money to buy the singles and LPs they valued."
I refrain from talking in generalities, if I can. If, by 'people' you mean, *all* people, then ofcourse, it is obvious that this is not the case. You'll have people that will never buy a song, you'll have people that would never download a song, regardless if it's free or not. You have, basically, all sorts of people.
Nevertheless, many people are downloading music which they would never have bought otherwise. So, in those cases, even the weak argument that the RIAA loses money because otherwise you would have payed for it, is false. Sure, you'll have some people that would otherwise have bought the CD, maybe, but that is far from certain, and thus, that RIAA-argument can't be used by default.
"It may be abused, but better, I think, to correct those abuses than simply throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Exept there is no baby, only bathwater. Personally, I think it's time for a complete overwhole of the IP-system. In the whole of your post, you seem to ignore the fact that the state does not give a monopoly so that creators can get wealthy, they give it because they presume it stimulates innovation. Independend studies, thusfar, have all indicated that, at least with some IP, this is not the case, and rather the reverse is true. This has been shown for patents, and particular software-patents (because the most research has been done in that area).
Well, by all means: let's conduct a comprehensive, independend research whether or not copyright truelly stimulates innovation, and if so, to which degree and if the benefits outweigh the
"Charging who by the hour? Who is going to pay by the hour for me to create something which can then be freely redistributed by anyone who gets ahold of it?"
Ermm...People or companies that need the software? Since you claim to be a coder, I'm rather amazed by the fact you seem to forget a lot of todays' earnings for software devls is because they make tailored software for specific needs. A company that has a specific need will pay developers to create the tool they want to handle that need.
And, even when it doesn't involve specific needs of a certain company, it still is possible that a company "pay by the hour for me to create something which can then be freely redistributed by anyone who gets ahold of it", as SUSE and Red Hat clearly demonstrates just that, which you claim can not happen.
"And anyway, only pretty popular musicians can hope to have enough fans to support themselves through concerts."
And only very popular musicians earn money with the copyright they have on CD-sales/etc. So that point is no argument.
"Open source and the renaissance both fall under the other 1%."
One percent of what? OSS, seen as part in the software market, is growing rapidly, and already passed the 1% long ago within the field of software. And the renaissance... the argument seems rather self-fulfilling. In its time, the inventions made during the renaissance, were 100%, obviously. That the inventions as a whole, including those of modern times, make their part less then 1%, is a bit of a falacious reasoning; if we hadn't had IP, all inventions made today would be 100% of the part that were IP-free.
Besides, copyright and patents weren't widely introduced untill the 19th century, so it's above your 1% in any case, and it DOES show it is not a neccesity to have IP for having inventions.
You also claim that we would have *less* innovation if we hadn't had IP (something that IP-owners always seem keen on asserting), but in reality, this is only a biased opinion. Studies that have been done about IP and innovation in a historical context, have shown that it is not the amount of innovation that lessens if there is no IP, but that it is the kind of innovations made that changes whether or not one has IP protection.
Innovation as a whole, thus, is not really promoted by having IP or not.
"Most of the informational products of the renaissance were created by rich people or funded by rich people, just because they had nothing better to do with their money. Such a system could work today, but would only produce a small fraction (probably less than 1%) of the information available on the market."
You forget that it is just the informationage that makes it possible for a new kind of funding. In modern times, wealth is not divided in the same way as it used to be; there is now a large base of resonably wealthy populace (certainly compared with a few hundred years ago). The Net gives the possibility to that populace to act as funders/fans, where once, only rich people could afford to. So, instead of having one rich dude being the mecenas and funding him with lots of money (as during the rennaissance), we now have the possibility of thousands of mecenas/fans donating small amounts of money.
This will be easier for musicians then for coders, true, but even that is possible (Freenet has been paying a coder full-time for the last 4 years, thanks to donations, for instance). But coders can be payed if they make tailored software for companies, as I said above. Or if people enjoy their software so much they are willing to support it. Ofcourse, when (the progs of) coders and (the music of) musicians are not popular, they will not earn enough. then again, this is exactly the same with or without copyright; if people don't like what you make, you won't earn enough to 'feed your family'. That's life of an artist. If you look for a more secure job, one should go for being a civil servant or something.
"Please, by all means, tell me how I can make money f
I notice you use the word 'theft' a lot. I see it as an echo of what the RIAA says when they claim copying music is like 'stealing from a shop'.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new (or, in fact, old)?
You act as if innovation would stop, if IP would be thrown into the bin, but, as the other poster already indicated, you seem to ignore the fact that, during most of mankinds history, inventions were made without any help of IP-rights. You also seem to ignore the fact that even today, huge projects have been very succesful without needing the artificial monopoly of IP that the state gives. All those things point to the fact, that for innovation, it is not really a necessity to have IP.
One may argue it 'promotes' innovation, as you have done in your first post of the thread, but does it really? In australia, in the 80ies, they have done research into this, and the commision there concluded that it didn't do what it was supposed to do: promote innovation (in all honesty, it was about patents in particular, because 'IP' is a misnomer to begin with). Also, for software patents, there have been enough independent studies to show that it does not promote innovation, and in fact, the opposite may be true. International studies of the use of 'IP' as a whole have been few, but it wouldn't surprise me if they came to the same conclusion.
So, where does that leave you? I'm all for further studies on the subject, but if they, indeed, continue to show that IP does not really promote innovation, then one of your own basic premises to allow them are void. The only reason, after all, why the state allows you to have an artificial monopoly on your IP (even though everyone knows monopolies are bad), is because it is supposed to promote innovation. If it doesn't do that, there is no reason for the state to give it.
While I understand the sentiment, I'm afraid the parent poster is basically right.
Even when a treaty is signed, it is never absolute, and it does not imply that a country can not withdraw from it. The USA has done exactly that with several international treaties, so it should't complain about others when they act the same. No treaty, international, bilateral or multilateral, supercedes the sovereignity of a state. It makes them f- hypocrites ofcourse (just like in the case of the USA), but one can hardly forbid a country to withdraw from a previous engagement, even if it makes them asses.
Furthermore, the fact that Koffi Anan and 188 or whatever countries signed it, still doesn't mean anything in regard to countries that didn't sign it (or withdrew in a legally allowed manner). It's not because other countries agree they won't make nukes, they you are compelled to do the same.
I also do not entirely agree with your last paragraph. A nuclear war is not about winning (it never was, not even during the cold war); it's about the threat on içtself. There is no doubt in anyones mind, that the USA could invade N. Korea, and/or obliterate N.Korea with nukes. Only, if the N.Koreans could nuke even only a few major cities, which USA politician would actually dare to invade N. Korean?
So, ofcourse they can't win a nuclear war, and that's not their purpose, it's to keep the USA out of their country. and one can not deny that that is an effective way. Let's face it, if Iraq actually had had nuclear rockets (and the willingness to use them) that could reach USA cities, there is no way in hell the USA would have invaded the country.
As it was now, Bush knew all to well they hadn't, even when he had his mouth full about WMD's. So they invaded on that pretext. I'll give you on a note that they won't do the same with N. Korea, because they know they actually HAVE nukes. Once Iran has nukes (and rockets), the threat of invading Iran becomes nonsenical.
Mind you, I'm not saying I think this makles the world a better place, but it IS a fact that having nukes diminushes the chance that the USA will invade. One has other options to do that too, ofcourse (such as being pro-USA and doing their biddings, etc), but one can not deny that this is also a way to make it extremely unlikely they would get invaded. and for countries that have the technical capability, and which aren't pro-USA, this option seems rather an obvious route.
"A major asteroid impact or volcanic event would be a massive disaster and might result in the collapse of most societies, but it would be unlikely to jeopardize the long-term survival of humans as a species."
Well, actually that would depend on the size of the comet or asteroid. For sure, a 100 meter asteroid would be of no concern to anyone; it probably would just burn up in the atmosphere. A 100 km one would completely destroy the human race with almost a near certitude.
Ofcourse, it is true that, the bigger they get, the more unlikely it becomes. But the principle remains the same; if it's big enough, nothing garantuees that humans will survive.
"You have to face the inevitable fact that all things come to an end, even entire species, even if they are dispersed across the galaxy."
Well, actually, that's an unsubstantiated claim. As yet we have no examples, nor experience with species that are multi-planetary, let alone galaxy-wide.
It is reasonable to assume that some branches of the human race on some solarsystems will die out, for sure, but whether all branches, in whatever form, will die out, remains open for debate.
One could think that, with the end of the universe, everything ends, but then again, there are already theories that there are multiple universes, and maybe they are reachable, so the ultimate future/fate remains uncertain.
Ofcourse, if a big enough asteroid would hit earth now, it's rather a near certainty our race would get whiped out.
Though I must confess he writes excellent SF-books, it is also true Orson is, in real life, not as progressively minded as one would expect when reading his books. which is doubly strange, because, if I remember correctly, he's an anthropologist: someone you would expect to have respect for other views and cultures.
But no, his views are the right ones, and they AREN'T very progressive, I can tell you that. Others have already mentionned his outdated and strange ideas about homosexuality, and he is rather fixated in his opinions of mores and tolerance towards others that do not live according to his conception of what is 'right'.
If I didn't know any better, I would say he fits right in with the ultra-right 'reborn' christian dogmatists in the bible-belt. (Well, actually, I don't know for sure: is he one of those Xians?)
It's really a mystery to me, how someone who writes so beautiful SF, can be so rigid and biased in reallife. While (apart from some true masterpieces) Robert Heinlein wrote a bit less compelling SF, at least he WAS progressive, certainly seen in his time.
Which is one of the main reasons I think Card is BS in this article. He compares the original startrek in the light of current mores, culture, and technology. Back THEN, starttrek was very progressive, the actors weren't any worse then in most TV-series, and the technolgy wasn't advanced enough to get all those fancy special effects we take for granted today.
Maybe it's difficult in our current time to imagine this, but the broadcast company almost refused to let Spock in the series, because *he was to controversial with his pointy ears*. Unbelievable nowadays, but THAT was the times in which starttrek had to operate. So, seen in THEIR timeframe and culture, it was a heck of a progressive series.
And another thing (which I know some here will strongly disagree with too); I don't understand his enthousiasm for firefly. I have watched several episodes in the past, and I thought it was utter crap. Seen with in current times, it HAS a weak cast and storyline, the special effects suck, and basically, all the things he complains about about startrek are present in Firefly...with the difference that it is made now, making the shortcommings unforgivable.
Well, I know some are crazy of firefly, but why is completely beyond me. Meh...guess there is little to discuss regarding tastes. If anything, while startrek was more eclectic (still liked it though; it was that kind of genre, after all), if you want something more in the genre of firefly, but which is GOOD, I would suggest Farscape.
"First while surely one can't derive the principle I suggested from pure logic this has not bearing on whether or not it is objectively true."
No, the reasoning on itself may be true (in a logical sense). But that doesn't mean the premise you start with is true. All premises are subjective (I agree with that, if you mean that). It follows that there is no objective truth, as a premise. To have any sense in what is more correct then something else, one has to look at the underlying consistentcy of the argumentation and logic, thus. If you follow your premise to its logical conclusion in all its aspects, then I can not counteragrue that you are more or less wrong then I am, if I use my premise and act/reason accordingly. ultimately, as I said, we could be both 'right', even when we come to different conclusion, because each uses a diferent startingpoint. My additional point however, is, that most people wouldn't be able to follow your reasoning consistently, even if they wanted too (see below).
"Regardless of what you think is right clearly many people would not accord a chimera the full emotional regard they do a human. This means the harm from killing a chimera will be much lower."
But that is unsuitable for having a consistent ethical principle. "Much lower", according to whome? What is the level necessary to be a determining factor in making it unethical? Is there some magical threshold of feeling distressed? Some inherent distress-level at which something becomes unethical or not?
I don't think so. If it's a matter af gradation, then you have no objective means to declare the distress people feel about killing severely handicapt people is enough to make it unethical, but the distress that people feel about killing chimera with human behaviour, is unsufficient to warrant the conclusion that it isn't unethical. This does not make sense.
Secondly: You're, in fact, arguing a self-fulfilling definition: if it's distress/hurt that people feel which makes all the difference, then there is no principle to be followed. Thus, whether or not it starts out to be ethical, doesn't matter. As you are well aware, people are dynamic in nature and influencable. So, basically, if people like me and others who feel it's not right can make it more clear, be it by logic or emotional grounds, that it is ethically wrong, then this will augment the distress people feel, when such unethical things happen. If the distress augments, then it becomes ethically wrong, even if it wasn't at first (according to your theory).
So, from my standpoint, not only do I have to protest on principal ethical grounds, but the more people I can convince it's unethical (with the accompanying distress), the more it becomes actually unethical, according to your own reasoning, even.
Well, excuse me if I keep finding it unethical, then. I mean, even if you disagree now, if enough people see it as unethical and feel emotionally shaken by it, I'll be right after all.;-)
And, btw, you make assertions I do not agree with. I think most humans WOULD accord a chimera, certainly those with human cognitive abilities, full human rights. And the part of the human race that doesn't agree, would still be handling unethical. (And, if we feel strong enough about it, we would be right, even according to your reasoning).
"In particular the entire point is to avoid the suffering of grief and forseen doom/danger."
No, it isn't. You see, you start with a premise that I don't agree with. This is what I meant with the examples of Nazi's and pathological murderers, etc. THEY can say: it's not about the grief, it's about my own pleasure, or my ideology, etc. What can you say then? At most, that it isn't ethical in your book - but it could still be logical when you use their premise.
Well, I don't agree it is solely about suffering or not. As I said, that would imply that killing someone (whome no one would really miss) in his sleep (so he himself doesn't feel distressed), would be ethic
You do realise that many would consider that your viewpoint is rather a-moralthen anything else, I hope?
I can't subscribe to many of your statements, because I do not agree with the premise you start with. I do agree with the logic behind your reasoning, however.
But, as I said before, that is, on its own, rather subjective.
You take the suffering it causes etc. as guideline, but there is nothing inherently objective about that. One could as well argue, that the suffering of others don't matter, and the only thing of importance is what you (as a perpetrator) feel. If you don't feel bothered, then everything is ok. That way, Nazi's can kill jews, because they're jews, whites can kill blacks, because for them the color of their skin makes the essential difference, not the suffering that they cause to their victims or their relatives. A pathological serial killer could kill everyone, but as long as he is happy, and that was his premisse, he is not doing anything 'wrong' or 'unethical', viewed from his stance.
So, you see, consistency can be achieved, even though allmost all people (exept perhaps the peretrators) would think it is unethical. Therefor, I think it's necessary to agree on a premise first. I, for one, am of the opinion that the unsettling effect it has on people or relatives, is not the determining fact, when you try to establish a rationale for a consistent ethical behaviour.
I can exept that premise (as a matter of logic) is used by people, as long as they don't contradict themselves. But frankly, I doubt many could. Let's say YOU *are* on an island with a depressed human being. Would you really kill that man/woman/child? I doubt it. Maybe you could argue that's because you would feel guilty, but the perverse effect of that kind of ethic is, that those with the least morals behave the most ethical. In that view, a ruthless killer who feels no remorse or guilt, who kills people (that have no family/friends, and aren't missed) in their sleep, could be considerd as being a very ethical person.
I really can't subscribe to that premise. Yes, it is true that, if all people considered killing a 1 year old as being normal, one could argue it's ethical (within your reasoning). But, basically, that's what large groups of people have said about other groups of people, when they massacred them. And if you don't recognise blacks/jews/etc. as people, and their feelings not as 'real human feelings', basically, you can't say they are unethical nor inconsistent, viewed from their perspective.
Viewed from my ethical system (and premise), they most definately ARE, however. To know what premise is more correct, one would have to look at the inconsistencies when that premise is applied, me thinks. For instance, if you consider jews as not being human, but you define the human race in a biological context (where species can interbreed), then you will have trouble explaining how it is possible that a jew and a german can have a child, if one is of the human race, and the other not. this is true for every premise. If you find my examples of the murderer/nazi's etc., as being showcases of unethical behaviour, even when following your reasoning, then there is something wrong with the premise (or with the reasoning).
So I do belive it's possible that one can discern the better of the used premises, but on the other hand, it can't be excluded that some premises and consequent reasonings are fully consistent, yet, diametrically oposed to another, equally consistent viewpoint.
I don't see that quite in your reasoning, however. For instance, you say:
"This too explains why one might want to immediatly kill any chimera exhibiting human traits, since it would be maturing from childhood hopefully it could be killed before realizing its situation."
If you consider this ethical behaviour, one should consider killing (handicapt) babies, before they realise their situation, as being ethical too. When you claim that that would be unethical, because it evokes distress with other people, then the killing of chimeras is unethical too, because it causes distres with me (and aparently a lot of other people, seen the responses). So, whatever way you turn it, it is either ethical, or unethical, in *both* cases.
"So the point is that being human requires a huge number of factors. Just as missing only a few of these does not make someone totally non-human (retarded people) giving a sheep only one of these does not suddenly make it human."
Ah, yes, but that only pospones the question. At some point, you will have a chimera that has the same 'whole brain development' as a mentally retarded person. We treat the latter as a human, with rights that we do not give to animals (being killed for experimentation, for instance). And it's not 'one iota' that makes the difference, mind you. There are any number of different mental retardness, of different severity; some light, some very heavy. If you ever worked with handicapt people, you will have an idea what I'm talking about.
Those that lack their frontal lobes, for instance, do NOT act as a human. They have no coherent thought and show less intelligence then a chimp, and I doubt they would even pass the self aware test with the mirror. Yet, we still consider they have human rights. If you create chimeras with the same (albeit very low) human capacities that those handicapts have - even when it can't really be clearly defined if they are human - shouldn't that chimera have the same rights? When the answer is yes, then it becomes an almost impossible ethical rope-dance, because of the various degrees even a human can be retarded. If the answer is no, then you are basically killing beings with the same (reduced) intelligence of severely retarded people; so clearly, cognitive capabilities can't be the measure to define 'human'. Certainly, the issue is full of ethical problems, far beyond the mere 'do they suffer pain' with normal animals.
"Likely these are related issues but many people attach ethical import to being born from human parents and other factors for a variety of reasons (avoiding slipperly slopes and the irrational emotional attachment we have to those things we recognize as human)."
I do not subscribe to that notion, and what's more, I think it is untenable. If the time arrives that a chimera (or an AI, for that matter), can reason, feel empathy, show all the signs of intelligence that a human has, I doubt anyone would claim they do not deserve human rights. (Well, you always would have those people, after all, even today you have those that claim some people do not even deserve the same rights). Regardless, there wouldn't be a basis to claim that, because someone isn't born from human parents, he inherently doesn't deserve any human rights. If that would become law, then chimeras that had 99,99 percent human tissue, and 0,01 percent animal genetics, could be devoided of human rights - even when it shows NO difference (without genetic analysis) that they are chimeras. Basically, it would come down to genetic discrimination, which I don't believe many people subscribe to.
"Secondly you are confusing the question I was answering, will these animals be human like in their cognitive capabilities, with the ethical notion of being human."
Ah yes, but those two are inevitable intertwined. That WAS my point: when do you consider a chimera to be 'human'? First of all; what is 'human-like'? As I said with the example of severely mentally handicapt humans: they don't have the cognitive capabilities neither, in some cases. Yet, we consider them to have human rights. What is the difference between a human that is in a vegetative state or only shows animal-like responses, and a chimera that shows the same responses? In both cases, it is not determinable which is human, cognitively speaking.
Secondly, I do not think it's necessary for a chimera to realise it is (or isn't) human. For instance, say we create a true AI. The AI may recognise that he's not human, but does that mean he doesn't deserve the same rights as humans?
The problem can't be easily solved: it involves using a premisse when one considers a human 'human' enough to have human rights, and that IS subjective. Therefor, experiments with chimeras that have possible ram
"My original comment was arguing that the creation of chimera is fine."
Mine was: it's fine if it doesn't involve (human) braintissue. When it does, it's not fine before there has been a public debate on the matter,and stringent guidelines are issued. In that light, I find it simply mindboggling that the ethical commision of Oz gives out a guideline that if the mice/sheep/whatever exhibits human behaviour, it should be killed immediately. I'm really stupified at the (lack of) logic about that. So, when a chimera exhibits a human mind, it is *destroyed*? Well, fuck...so, even if a, say, chimp/human would have the capability to intelligently protest about his treatement, thereby showing human intelligence, it is immediately put to death? So not only is a chimera possibly (mis)treated as an non-sentient animal, it can't make protest about it in an intelligent way, or it is killed? Sounds like a deadly catch-22 to me. What craziness is this? And that from an ethical commission, en plus! Just shows how retarded some ppl are.
"My second comment argued that humans are not inherently better than any other species."
I can agree with that, though I should say I'm egocentric enough to feel that I (and other people) are more important then non-sentient animals.
"I am personally one of those animal rights activists that you mentioned."
Hpmf. I have some problems with at least some parts of those movements (well, the people within). I often find there is a lack of consistency. For instance, you have those that protest hunting and fishing, but still see no problem in eating meat themselves. I would argue that, if the hunting and fishing is done for food, they have no right to speak. In fact, the breeding of animals for food is WAY less 'ethical', often, then when you go hunting.
As for yourself: I can't say if you're inconsistent or not. It would depend on why you eat (or don't eat) animals, or why you object to it (or not). In all honesty, I have difficulties reconciling being 'an animals rights activist', and killing them, whether you kill them 'respectfully' or not (they're dead in any case, after all). I do think there is a contradiction there.
I,for one, eat animals too, but I'm not making excuses. I, too, prefer a clean quick 'respectful' killabove maltreating it, but I'm aware that's more to ease my consciece a bit. Fact is, I'm not sure if eating animals is actually all that ethical...honestly, I suspect those not eating animals (vegetarians and the lot) may, indeed, be on a higher ethical level then myself on this point. I just don't give enough about it (when it aren't apes or dolphins) to pass the oportunity for the taste of a juicy piece of meat. For me, the ultimate line is intelligence/self-awareness, at least on a cognitive level.
I say this, because, even when a handicapt person would not pass the self-awareness mirror-test, for instance, I wouldn't start eating him. But that's not on a rational level; it's just that I'm conditionned, like everyone else, with mores and ethics of my culture, that go beyond logical ratio. That may, or may not be a good thing, I dunno. For a consistent ethical guideline, you need logic, though. The premise one starts with, however, is, as always, subjective.
"You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human."
Ofourse I am. Everyone uses the morals of his time/culture. You are fully right about morals 300 years ago, but that doesn't come into the picture, because I'm not judging chimeras with the ethics of 300 years ago, but of those of today. And today, with the current ethics, I claim there is an ethical question when animals get human brains. Using anything else would be less logical: there is no reason to judge something with ethics of hundreds of years ago, and we can't know the ethics of the future, so those options would either be obsolete or unknowable.
Note, however, that, while I'm reluctant to call it social evolution, there at least seems a tendency in our ethics to be more 'soft'; we continiously consider people (or even animals) as having increasing rights, not the reverse. so, when pondering future ethics, it is rather more likely that things continue to evolve along that line, instead of reverting (to the point where blacks aren't considerd humans anymore once again, for instance). I think this is based on logical 'ethics', according to the philosophy of Kant (well, not that people all read or follow Kant, but his basic observations about what can serve as guidelines for is 'ethical' is, indeed, basic because humans have the tendency to follow it.
So, actually, I'm not sure what your argument was. I'not judging people 300 years ago according to the morals of those that did unethical things, indeed. I'judging them according to the moral principle that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't like other to do to you. And, even in their time, there were those that had moral and ethical objections to it, so it's not as if it was that undebated. And, even more: you act as if those ethics were universal, but I doubt the victims had the same opinion (that they weren't human)...so saying I'mnot using the morals of those times is misleading. I'm not using the morals of the majority of the perpetrators; THAT is true.
"If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general."
I do. And I'm not the only one. Animal rights groups are all over the globe, exactly because people do care about the issue.
"The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human."
Exactly. Therefor, it follows that it is exactly when the brain gets 'transplanted' into animals that you create aditional ethical problems.
"If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?"
Perhaps so, but as I said, it is futile to contemplate on future ethics which we can't know. However, I would note that it, indeed, becomes morally wrong when you slaughter 'animals' which you know are sentient. so, while future generations may regard us as barbarians because we slaughter sheep today (possibly rightfully so), at least it was out of ignorance and the impossibility to discern that they were sentient. I really doubt the conquestadores of 500 years past really felt there was no way to discern whether or not blacks were sentient. Seen the commentary of some of them, at least the thought must have accured that they were, in fact, humans(actually, pleadings that they were humans were offciial noted already in the 17th century before the spanish court,
"In short it isn't just human neurons which make us human but the whole brain development system at work in babies."
If it's the 'whole brain develoment system' which makes a human human, logic dictates that mentaly handicapt individuals, like, say, those that miss their frontal lobes (creepers in english, I believe), are not humans neither.
Thus, again following the same logic, it would be fully justified breeding or cloning such handicapt 'persons', and testing on them. In fact, it would be MUCH easier and efficient, to actually use those humans (which aren't humans in accordance with your definition) then to take animals. In any case, since at least some handicapts do not posses a "whole brain development system", those aren't humans, and experimenting on them pose no ethical questions.
Agreed?
(I won't invoke the Nazi's, because then the debate is over, I've heard;-)
"What happens is if we deem them to be close enough to human, we will give them "human rights."
Which is exactly where ethics come into play: when is 'enough', enough?
"We would not kill a human being to harvest their organs (in theory), so we would extend the same courtesy to the sheep. If they become sentient, who knows, maybe they'll get to vote. That's what happened when we finally realized that black people and women were sentient."
Which, again, points EXACTLY to the problem (and the fact it is an ethical issue): blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified. So, one might argument that things, eventually, sort themselves out (though, even for blacks today, it hasn't completely) - but in any case, it doesn't make it right what happend, and it also doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't an ethical issue.
It is entirely possible we will treat chimera's for hundreds of years, just as we treated blacks in earlier times. THAT is why we have to prevent it in front, and not have the attitude of "we'll see where it leads to". You just can't aford such attitude when there is the possibility you are killing intelligent animals. I don't know what ethics you uphold, but I, for one, consider killing sentient beings as immoral.
And yes, it's difficult, especially with chimera's, to know where the fine line is drawn. I would say, there is little to counterargument when it involves liver, hart, blood, etc. But it DOES become problematic when you speak about human brains. Sooner or later, you *will* create something that maybe isn't human, but ain't an animal neither. I fail to understand how someone fails to understand this IS an ethical problem, better to be considered in advance, then letting it abide and abuse themfor centuries 'like with the blacks'.
"But isn't it a scientific question to determine at what point a human life begins?"
LOL
I'm all for science, but this statement is impossible to uphold. By its very nature, it's an ethical thing, NOT a scientific thing.
You yourself gave some exmples of that. All over the world, there are myriad of 'ages' at which a foetus is considered worth the protection of human life...and they useally all have something scientific for it. But it *can't* say WHEN something should be considered human life, purely based on science, because it depends on the premise one takes.
For instance, if you consider a foetus 'human' when it starts developping a brain, then science can say when (more or less) this happens, yes...but there is nothing inherent that would indicate it's only THEN that it should be considered human.
and in fact, it doesn't: some take the development of the spinalcord as basis, some the developement of nerves, etc. For all this 'fine lines' there is something to say, and science can indicate when it happens...but it never will be able to determine WHEN a human becomes human, because that depends on your definition of what it is, what defines a human.
I for one, concluded that the most logical one would be when the melting of the egg and spermcel occurs (thus, when the cell is neither a spermcel, neither an eggcell, but something that, if conditions are set right, will, eventually, turn out to become a full blown baby and even an adult later in life.
Mind you, that I'm agonstic, so I didn't base myself on any religious dogma or such. I just find that, of all suggested 'boundaries', this really makes the most sense, at least when using logic. It's also (in current times), I'm quite aware, impossible to uphold in a pragmatical sense, since you can't actually force women to keep their baby/foetus - unless you derive them of essential liberties (which, as a libertarian, I wouldn't like to see happen).
This makes it a VERY though ethical dillema, in my view. Basically, one kills one human for the comfort of another, but there isn't really anything one can do to stop it. So, it might be that abortions are ethically wrong (for a change the religious bunch might be right), but their is no real solution to the problem.
One counterargument about the "sperm swimming" thingy; you are making a factual error. Let a spermcell and an eggcell 'swim' in ideal condictions, and both will die at *their* end of the life-cycle, which is rather short (72 hours for sperm, I believe). So, on themselves, neither one has the possibility to become a human person. Once combined, it might. Since this is the first instance, and a pretty clearly defined one, it's also the most logical one. None of the other alternatives are really as convincing.
The same is true with animals that have human brains. At some point, one comes to the ethical barrier, and that point can't really be determined by science alone. One could try, and say that something which doesn't have the same thinkprocesses as a person shouldn't be considered a person. But, following that logic, one must be consistent, and decide that all creatures without those processes are not humans (and thus, eligible for testing/harvesting/whatever). But then: do babies have neural processes that makes them a person? What if chimeras have the same level of brainactivity? And what IS the level of neural activity or behaviour before it to be considered human anyway? What about creepers (don't know if that is the correct english word); humans that are born without the frontal lobes (or other parts of the brain, or ganglions)? Those are, in effect, not anything else then on the level of animals or even plants. So why not just experiment on those handicapts? Why should a human body with no human brain deserve more protection then an animal body with a human brain?
As you can see, those issues ARE nothing but ethical dillema's, and science can't really help us with it, because you first need a premisse to start with.
"Stealing a woman's purse is wrong, copying 2000 DVDs and selling them for money is right (of course)."
And not without merrit: when one steals a woman's purse, she no longer has that purse. When one copies a song, the original song is still there.
I wonder why you added 'selling them'? Wouldn't it be wrong (because you were being ironic) anymore if they didn't sell it, but just distributed it freely?
Point is, copying music isn't stealing at all, whatever the RIAA may claim. It may be copyrightinfringement, but it's not stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyway, I am not arguing for or against patents here; only copyright."
Then you shouldn't have used 'IP' in your first posts. 'Intellectual Property' encompasses ALL of the already mentionned subjects, such as copyright, trademark and patents.
I agree, however, that copyrights impose less of a problem concerning monopolies then do patents. It still limits inherent freedoms, however - freedom of speech and expression comes to mind. These restrictions are allowed, with the premise that it stimulates innovation. It's true that I don't recall any studies that researched only the influence of copyright. however, it should be noted that the same basic arguments are used for copyrights as well as for patents, and at least in the latter case, they have been shown to be not valid.
This makes the 'obviousness' that your theory is correct when it is about copyright rather less obvious. Since we came from having no copyright, to having copyright with as reason it will stimulate creativity, it is for you (or those arguing for it) to prove that it, in fact does or did. Just saying 'it is obvious' is not enough. It's not for me to demonstrate it is NOT stimulating creativity, since the very reason that it was allowed, was under the pretext that it did or would.
"OK, this is econ 101 here: Competition forces producers to do as much as they possibly can with the money they earn. If they do not, some other company will beat them. As long as competition exists, more money equates to greater quantity and better quality."
Then monopolies must be the most inventive and novel producers of high-qualitative products. They earn huge amounts of money, and, according to your theory, they, thus, use all that money to make even more and better products.
As you said yourself; Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft are prime examples. You claim that other factors come into play...why, indeed, that was my point, that your theory was an oversimplification. If your theory with your 3 points were *inherently* true, then those 3 companies would have been the most productive producers of high-quality products in the history of the USA. The fact that they didn't use all their huge amount of IP-revenue for making better innovative products, on itself demonstrates that the supposed inherent logic and 'obviousness' that those who earn much, will work harder, is not correct.
That said, why I personally wouldn't mind a complete overhaul of all IP, I'm well aware this is not very pragmatic to expect that this will happen. More realistically, I think shortening copyright will be hard enough to accomplish, so it's not like I'm a die-hard everything-or-nothing anti-IP zealot.
I don't even think it will be possible to abolish patents, because they are so well entranched by now, even with international agreements and the lot. Alas. I would *really* like an overhaul of that system, however. And I sure as hell am going to do everything I can to prevent software patents in Europe. This madness of corporate greed and articifial monopolies has to stop.
I still think your claim lacks substance that only IP can provide enough innovation and qualitative products, or prevent creators from starving and what not - but the point is rather moot, in a pragmatical sense.
Would somebody PLEASE think of the chil..I mean, fish!!
"Actually, ignore my other post. I have a more concise argument."
:-)
Nah! You don't come of that easily! I did not ignore it, so you can't brush of my wounterarguments neither!
"You seem to think there is no evidence that copyright increases the quality and quantity of information available. Consider this argument:"
Not only do I think that, it is susbstantiated by the (rather few, admitedly) research that has been done. I provided a link in one of my other posts. Feel free to post a link to a study that DOES indicate that copyright (well, it was 'IP', actually) is the only way to stimulate innovation, and that any other way would produce less quality and quantity. Otherwise, we could be quarreling about how wrong eachother opinions are the whole night.
Your 3 points are a basic argument for all those that are pro-IP (not that that on itself means it's not true, ofcourse), but it is not substantiated by observation or research. Moreover, it is fairly simple to demonstrate that it is not correct, probably because it is an oversimplification. I think you mistake for what is theorethical possible, to that what is likely to happen (and happening, in most cases) For instance, according to your theory, a monopoly would provide the best quality and the most quantity: it has huge revenues, thus, it has more possibilities to make more and better products, exactly following your reasoning.
In practise, however, this turns out not to be true. The main fallacy here is that because you earn more, you *are* going to work harder. Certainly, one CAN use the money to keep improving your products... Mostly, the contrary is true however: people and companies who already earn vast amounts of money on IP they already posses, become complacent and have little incentive to invest in expensive R&D. They'd rather spend their money on sueing others and keeping their comfortable position by *(ab)using* their IP against possible competitors, instead of developing new ways in which to outperform those competitors.
Thats why, almost without exeption, monopolists are bad: bad for customers, bad for the economy, bad for society as a whole, and even bad for the company itself, in the long run. If your theory would be the whole story, then monopolists would be the most productive, qualitative highest producers of goods anywhere, since they adher to all your points. Obviously, this is not the case.
"Let me revise my statement: Without copyright, for the majority of software products, it is impossible to earn nearly as much money as could be earned with copyright. And that directly translates to less and lower-quality software."
Well, that's something else all together. You are fully right that IP-owners like the RIAA and co can make insane amounts of money. Nowhere does it state that IP laws are there to get fantastic rich, however. If your point was, that you can, potentially, make far more money without doing much exept sitting on your IP, then when you wouldn't have IP and would have to continue to be creative and compete on a free market, then I concede that point.
I do not agree with your last conclusion, however. There are literally thousands of free software packages (check out a complete distro, for instance). No doubt you can claim there are even more that are closed, but that was just my point when saying it's a non-argument because it points to something it has made true itself. IP has entrenched all off society so much, that you can't go without it. Strictly spoken, even most freeware makes use of copyright, for instance. It does not make an argument for claiming that is proof that without IP, there would be less software.
"There are hundreds of OSS projects out there that deserve those donations far, far more than Freenet does, and yet people donate to Freenet because they're excited by the ability to get copyrighted material for free."
Even if that were true, does that, in any way, refute the claim that coders *can* get payed, even for free software?
"Cop out. My whole point is that there is no way."
Dude, I just *told* you different ways that creators could earn money. It's just that you don't agree with it, or think they should get even more.
Let's repeat:
As a coder, you can earn money by: working on a tailored software for a specific need (most earnings are done this way already, btw), you can create something that people want to support (projects like Freenet and others, that are supported by donations), you can work for a compay that offers free products, but earns by giving support, you can go work for companies that pay you on free software, because they see an added value for their hardware products (like IBM), etc.
Now, is it possible or not to earn money in another way, then selling your products, because it's backed by a state-given monopoly? Conclusion, yes, there is.
Will all developers be able to earn their bread this way? Difficult to say, but even with IP, not all developpers can earn their bread even today, so its a moot point. Will it be possible to get insanely rich , like some could when using IP laws? Probably not, but nowhere is it stated that that was the purpose of IP anyway.
And yes, IP IS a monopoly, even when you deny it. You're counterarguments are only subject to the - indeed less restrictive in that area - domain of copyright. However, you use IP, and that involves ALL intellectual property rights, including trademark and patents. And with patents it is more then clear it IS a monopoly. I believe it even states so literaly in the legal framework of the court (at least in my country).
"The claim is an intuitively obvious fact of economics. You have somehow convinced yourself otherwise, likely to rationalize your desire to steal copyrighted works."
The claim is neither intuitive, nor a fact, nor based on inherent economic laws, as history and even contemporary examples have shown us, and still do - something I have repeatedly pointed out already. If it's so factual, please give a link to a study or researchpaper that confirms your claims. Nowhere, in a scientific study that I have seen, did it indicate what you claim is such an obvious fact, which is more then telling on itself. I would claim the oposite; that you have somehow convinced yourself otherwise, likely to rationalize your desire to earn money in a way that would not be possible if it was really competing in a
"One of the definitions of theft is: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent". (We can engage in pointing dictionaries, but it only illustrates the fact that older definitions simply reflect the time in which they were forged.)"
One may indeed. And btw, not only older definitions, but ALL definitions reflect the time in which they were forged. Note, however, that by your own definition, it isn't theft. When you copy something, you duplicate it, you don't take it away.
"When copied that value, that end result, was then stolen, without consent or payment. If it didn't have value, it wouldn't have been taken."
False in more then one way. First of all, it's not because something is 'taken', that it has value. Secondly, it's not taken, it's copied, which means duplicated. Thirdly, the end result is not stolen; it is still in the possesion of the musicians. It is strange you seem to have so much trouble understanding the difference. If you bake a bread and I take it away, then you could sue me for theft. If you bake a bread and somehow I make a replica of your bread and eat that, you could not sue me for theft.
This would be the case regardless of the effort and time you put into baking your bread.
"So question 1: Why should the thief benefit from the artist's or writer's or developer's work, and the artist or writer or developer not? "
This seems a rethorical question. First of all, it's not a thief if he didn't steal anything, so dramatising it doesn't make your point stronger. Secondly, who said the creator can't benefit from it? Whether he succeeds in benefiting is another matter, but no one would argue he can't try. You seem to imply that people can only earn money by using their IP, which is blatantly untrue. There are numerous ways in which musicians, coders and other creators can try to make a living of what they produce. I already gave possible examples in another post, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=149042&cid=124 97109.
That post in large part answers your second question too.
"You make one of the standing arguments that people who download music would not buy it otherwise. Perhaps, but I seem to recall that in the vinyl age, when such could not be copied, that kids almost always managed to find the money to buy the singles and LPs they valued."
I refrain from talking in generalities, if I can. If, by 'people' you mean, *all* people, then ofcourse, it is obvious that this is not the case. You'll have people that will never buy a song, you'll have people that would never download a song, regardless if it's free or not. You have, basically, all sorts of people.
Nevertheless, many people are downloading music which they would never have bought otherwise. So, in those cases, even the weak argument that the RIAA loses money because otherwise you would have payed for it, is false. Sure, you'll have some people that would otherwise have bought the CD, maybe, but that is far from certain, and thus, that RIAA-argument can't be used by default.
"It may be abused, but better, I think, to correct those abuses than simply throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Exept there is no baby, only bathwater. Personally, I think it's time for a complete overwhole of the IP-system. In the whole of your post, you seem to ignore the fact that the state does not give a monopoly so that creators can get wealthy, they give it because they presume it stimulates innovation. Independend studies, thusfar, have all indicated that, at least with some IP, this is not the case, and rather the reverse is true. This has been shown for patents, and particular software-patents (because the most research has been done in that area).
Well, by all means: let's conduct a comprehensive, independend research whether or not copyright truelly stimulates innovation, and if so, to which degree and if the benefits outweigh the
"Charging who by the hour? Who is going to pay by the hour for me to create something which can then be freely redistributed by anyone who gets ahold of it?"
Ermm...People or companies that need the software? Since you claim to be a coder, I'm rather amazed by the fact you seem to forget a lot of todays' earnings for software devls is because they make tailored software for specific needs. A company that has a specific need will pay developers to create the tool they want to handle that need.
And, even when it doesn't involve specific needs of a certain company, it still is possible that a company "pay by the hour for me to create something which can then be freely redistributed by anyone who gets ahold of it", as SUSE and Red Hat clearly demonstrates just that, which you claim can not happen.
"And anyway, only pretty popular musicians can hope to have enough fans to support themselves through concerts."
And only very popular musicians earn money with the copyright they have on CD-sales/etc. So that point is no argument.
"Open source and the renaissance both fall under the other 1%."
One percent of what? OSS, seen as part in the software market, is growing rapidly, and already passed the 1% long ago within the field of software. And the renaissance... the argument seems rather self-fulfilling. In its time, the inventions made during the renaissance, were 100%, obviously. That the inventions as a whole, including those of modern times, make their part less then 1%, is a bit of a falacious reasoning; if we hadn't had IP, all inventions made today would be 100% of the part that were IP-free.
Besides, copyright and patents weren't widely introduced untill the 19th century, so it's above your 1% in any case, and it DOES show it is not a neccesity to have IP for having inventions.
You also claim that we would have *less* innovation if we hadn't had IP (something that IP-owners always seem keen on asserting), but in reality, this is only a biased opinion. Studies that have been done about IP and innovation in a historical context, have shown that it is not the amount of innovation that lessens if there is no IP, but that it is the kind of innovations made that changes whether or not one has IP protection.
Innovation as a whole, thus, is not really promoted by having IP or not.
"Most of the informational products of the renaissance were created by rich people or funded by rich people, just because they had nothing better to do with their money. Such a system could work today, but would only produce a small fraction (probably less than 1%) of the information available on the market."
You forget that it is just the informationage that makes it possible for a new kind of funding. In modern times, wealth is not divided in the same way as it used to be; there is now a large base of resonably wealthy populace (certainly compared with a few hundred years ago). The Net gives the possibility to that populace to act as funders/fans, where once, only rich people could afford to. So, instead of having one rich dude being the mecenas and funding him with lots of money (as during the rennaissance), we now have the possibility of thousands of mecenas/fans donating small amounts of money.
This will be easier for musicians then for coders, true, but even that is possible (Freenet has been paying a coder full-time for the last 4 years, thanks to donations, for instance). But coders can be payed if they make tailored software for companies, as I said above. Or if people enjoy their software so much they are willing to support it. Ofcourse, when (the progs of) coders and (the music of) musicians are not popular, they will not earn enough. then again, this is exactly the same with or without copyright; if people don't like what you make, you won't earn enough to 'feed your family'. That's life of an artist. If you look for a more secure job, one should go for being a civil servant or something.
"Please, by all means, tell me how I can make money f
I notice you use the word 'theft' a lot. I see it as an echo of what the RIAA says when they claim copying music is like 'stealing from a shop'.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new (or, in fact, old)?
You act as if innovation would stop, if IP would be thrown into the bin, but, as the other poster already indicated, you seem to ignore the fact that, during most of mankinds history, inventions were made without any help of IP-rights. You also seem to ignore the fact that even today, huge projects have been very succesful without needing the artificial monopoly of IP that the state gives. All those things point to the fact, that for innovation, it is not really a necessity to have IP.
One may argue it 'promotes' innovation, as you have done in your first post of the thread, but does it really? In australia, in the 80ies, they have done research into this, and the commision there concluded that it didn't do what it was supposed to do: promote innovation (in all honesty, it was about patents in particular, because 'IP' is a misnomer to begin with). Also, for software patents, there have been enough independent studies to show that it does not promote innovation, and in fact, the opposite may be true. International studies of the use of 'IP' as a whole have been few, but it wouldn't surprise me if they came to the same conclusion.
So, where does that leave you? I'm all for further studies on the subject, but if they, indeed, continue to show that IP does not really promote innovation, then one of your own basic premises to allow them are void. The only reason, after all, why the state allows you to have an artificial monopoly on your IP (even though everyone knows monopolies are bad), is because it is supposed to promote innovation. If it doesn't do that, there is no reason for the state to give it.
While I understand the sentiment, I'm afraid the parent poster is basically right.
Even when a treaty is signed, it is never absolute, and it does not imply that a country can not withdraw from it. The USA has done exactly that with several international treaties, so it should't complain about others when they act the same. No treaty, international, bilateral or multilateral, supercedes the sovereignity of a state. It makes them f- hypocrites ofcourse (just like in the case of the USA), but one can hardly forbid a country to withdraw from a previous engagement, even if it makes them asses.
Furthermore, the fact that Koffi Anan and 188 or whatever countries signed it, still doesn't mean anything in regard to countries that didn't sign it (or withdrew in a legally allowed manner). It's not because other countries agree they won't make nukes, they you are compelled to do the same.
I also do not entirely agree with your last paragraph. A nuclear war is not about winning (it never was, not even during the cold war); it's about the threat on içtself. There is no doubt in anyones mind, that the USA could invade N. Korea, and/or obliterate N.Korea with nukes. Only, if the N.Koreans could nuke even only a few major cities, which USA politician would actually dare to invade N. Korean?
So, ofcourse they can't win a nuclear war, and that's not their purpose, it's to keep the USA out of their country. and one can not deny that that is an effective way. Let's face it, if Iraq actually had had nuclear rockets (and the willingness to use them) that could reach USA cities, there is no way in hell the USA would have invaded the country.
As it was now, Bush knew all to well they hadn't, even when he had his mouth full about WMD's. So they invaded on that pretext. I'll give you on a note that they won't do the same with N. Korea, because they know they actually HAVE nukes. Once Iran has nukes (and rockets), the threat of invading Iran becomes nonsenical.
Mind you, I'm not saying I think this makles the world a better place, but it IS a fact that having nukes diminushes the chance that the USA will invade. One has other options to do that too, ofcourse (such as being pro-USA and doing their biddings, etc), but one can not deny that this is also a way to make it extremely unlikely they would get invaded. and for countries that have the technical capability, and which aren't pro-USA, this option seems rather an obvious route.
"A major asteroid impact or volcanic event would be a massive disaster and might result in the collapse of most societies, but it would be unlikely to jeopardize the long-term survival of humans as a species."
Well, actually that would depend on the size of the comet or asteroid. For sure, a 100 meter asteroid would be of no concern to anyone; it probably would just burn up in the atmosphere. A 100 km one would completely destroy the human race with almost a near certitude.
Ofcourse, it is true that, the bigger they get, the more unlikely it becomes. But the principle remains the same; if it's big enough, nothing garantuees that humans will survive.
"You have to face the inevitable fact that all things come to an end, even entire species, even if they are dispersed across the galaxy."
Well, actually, that's an unsubstantiated claim. As yet we have no examples, nor experience with species that are multi-planetary, let alone galaxy-wide.
It is reasonable to assume that some branches of the human race on some solarsystems will die out, for sure, but whether all branches, in whatever form, will die out, remains open for debate.
One could think that, with the end of the universe, everything ends, but then again, there are already theories that there are multiple universes, and maybe they are reachable, so the ultimate future/fate remains uncertain.
Ofcourse, if a big enough asteroid would hit earth now, it's rather a near certainty our race would get whiped out.
Though I must confess he writes excellent SF-books, it is also true Orson is, in real life, not as progressively minded as one would expect when reading his books. which is doubly strange, because, if I remember correctly, he's an anthropologist: someone you would expect to have respect for other views and cultures.
But no, his views are the right ones, and they AREN'T very progressive, I can tell you that. Others have already mentionned his outdated and strange ideas about homosexuality, and he is rather fixated in his opinions of mores and tolerance towards others that do not live according to his conception of what is 'right'.
If I didn't know any better, I would say he fits right in with the ultra-right 'reborn' christian dogmatists in the bible-belt. (Well, actually, I don't know for sure: is he one of those Xians?)
It's really a mystery to me, how someone who writes so beautiful SF, can be so rigid and biased in reallife. While (apart from some true masterpieces) Robert Heinlein wrote a bit less compelling SF, at least he WAS progressive, certainly seen in his time.
Which is one of the main reasons I think Card is BS in this article. He compares the original startrek in the light of current mores, culture, and technology. Back THEN, starttrek was very progressive, the actors weren't any worse then in most TV-series, and the technolgy wasn't advanced enough to get all those fancy special effects we take for granted today.
Maybe it's difficult in our current time to imagine this, but the broadcast company almost refused to let Spock in the series, because *he was to controversial with his pointy ears*. Unbelievable nowadays, but THAT was the times in which starttrek had to operate. So, seen in THEIR timeframe and culture, it was a heck of a progressive series.
And another thing (which I know some here will strongly disagree with too); I don't understand his enthousiasm for firefly. I have watched several episodes in the past, and I thought it was utter crap. Seen with in current times, it HAS a weak cast and storyline, the special effects suck, and basically, all the things he complains about about startrek are present in Firefly...with the difference that it is made now, making the shortcommings unforgivable.
Well, I know some are crazy of firefly, but why is completely beyond me. Meh...guess there is little to discuss regarding tastes. If anything, while startrek was more eclectic (still liked it though; it was that kind of genre, after all), if you want something more in the genre of firefly, but which is GOOD, I would suggest Farscape.
Ofcourse, that would become problematic if they want to use the GPL or a CC licence for their IP. ;-)
"First while surely one can't derive the principle I suggested from pure logic this has not bearing on whether or not it is objectively true."
;-)
No, the reasoning on itself may be true (in a logical sense). But that doesn't mean the premise you start with is true. All premises are subjective (I agree with that, if you mean that). It follows that there is no objective truth, as a premise. To have any sense in what is more correct then something else, one has to look at the underlying consistentcy of the argumentation and logic, thus. If you follow your premise to its logical conclusion in all its aspects, then I can not counteragrue that you are more or less wrong then I am, if I use my premise and act/reason accordingly. ultimately, as I said, we could be both 'right', even when we come to different conclusion, because each uses a diferent startingpoint. My additional point however, is, that most people wouldn't be able to follow your reasoning consistently, even if they wanted too (see below).
"Regardless of what you think is right clearly many people would not accord a chimera the full emotional regard they do a human. This means the harm from killing a chimera will be much lower."
But that is unsuitable for having a consistent ethical principle. "Much lower", according to whome? What is the level necessary to be a determining factor in making it unethical? Is there some magical threshold of feeling distressed? Some inherent distress-level at which something becomes unethical or not?
I don't think so. If it's a matter af gradation, then you have no objective means to declare the distress people feel about killing severely handicapt people is enough to make it unethical, but the distress that people feel about killing chimera with human behaviour, is unsufficient to warrant the conclusion that it isn't unethical. This does not make sense.
Secondly: You're, in fact, arguing a self-fulfilling definition: if it's distress/hurt that people feel which makes all the difference, then there is no principle to be followed. Thus, whether or not it starts out to be ethical, doesn't matter. As you are well aware, people are dynamic in nature and influencable. So, basically, if people like me and others who feel it's not right can make it more clear, be it by logic or emotional grounds, that it is ethically wrong, then this will augment the distress people feel, when such unethical things happen. If the distress augments, then it becomes ethically wrong, even if it wasn't at first (according to your theory).
So, from my standpoint, not only do I have to protest on principal ethical grounds, but the more people I can convince it's unethical (with the accompanying distress), the more it becomes actually unethical, according to your own reasoning, even.
Well, excuse me if I keep finding it unethical, then. I mean, even if you disagree now, if enough people see it as unethical and feel emotionally shaken by it, I'll be right after all.
And, btw, you make assertions I do not agree with. I think most humans WOULD accord a chimera, certainly those with human cognitive abilities, full human rights. And the part of the human race that doesn't agree, would still be handling unethical. (And, if we feel strong enough about it, we would be right, even according to your reasoning).
"In particular the entire point is to avoid the suffering of grief and forseen doom/danger."
No, it isn't. You see, you start with a premise that I don't agree with. This is what I meant with the examples of Nazi's and pathological murderers, etc. THEY can say: it's not about the grief, it's about my own pleasure, or my ideology, etc. What can you say then? At most, that it isn't ethical in your book - but it could still be logical when you use their premise.
Well, I don't agree it is solely about suffering or not. As I said, that would imply that killing someone (whome no one would really miss) in his sleep (so he himself doesn't feel distressed), would be ethic
You do realise that many would consider that your viewpoint is rather a-moralthen anything else, I hope?
I can't subscribe to many of your statements, because I do not agree with the premise you start with. I do agree with the logic behind your reasoning, however.
But, as I said before, that is, on its own, rather subjective.
You take the suffering it causes etc. as guideline, but there is nothing inherently objective about that. One could as well argue, that the suffering of others don't matter, and the only thing of importance is what you (as a perpetrator) feel. If you don't feel bothered, then everything is ok. That way, Nazi's can kill jews, because they're jews, whites can kill blacks, because for them the color of their skin makes the essential difference, not the suffering that they cause to their victims or their relatives. A pathological serial killer could kill everyone, but as long as he is happy, and that was his premisse, he is not doing anything 'wrong' or 'unethical', viewed from his stance.
So, you see, consistency can be achieved, even though allmost all people (exept perhaps the peretrators) would think it is unethical. Therefor, I think it's necessary to agree on a premise first. I, for one, am of the opinion that the unsettling effect it has on people or relatives, is not the determining fact, when you try to establish a rationale for a consistent ethical behaviour.
I can exept that premise (as a matter of logic) is used by people, as long as they don't contradict themselves. But frankly, I doubt many could. Let's say YOU *are* on an island with a depressed human being. Would you really kill that man/woman/child? I doubt it. Maybe you could argue that's because you would feel guilty, but the perverse effect of that kind of ethic is, that those with the least morals behave the most ethical. In that view, a ruthless killer who feels no remorse or guilt, who kills people (that have no family/friends, and aren't missed) in their sleep, could be considerd as being a very ethical person.
I really can't subscribe to that premise. Yes, it is true that, if all people considered killing a 1 year old as being normal, one could argue it's ethical (within your reasoning). But, basically, that's what large groups of people have said about other groups of people, when they massacred them. And if you don't recognise blacks/jews/etc. as people, and their feelings not as 'real human feelings', basically, you can't say they are unethical nor inconsistent, viewed from their perspective.
Viewed from my ethical system (and premise), they most definately ARE, however. To know what premise is more correct, one would have to look at the inconsistencies when that premise is applied, me thinks. For instance, if you consider jews as not being human, but you define the human race in a biological context (where species can interbreed), then you will have trouble explaining how it is possible that a jew and a german can have a child, if one is of the human race, and the other not. this is true for every premise. If you find my examples of the murderer/nazi's etc., as being showcases of unethical behaviour, even when following your reasoning, then there is something wrong with the premise (or with the reasoning).
So I do belive it's possible that one can discern the better of the used premises, but on the other hand, it can't be excluded that some premises and consequent reasonings are fully consistent, yet, diametrically oposed to another, equally consistent viewpoint.
I don't see that quite in your reasoning, however. For instance, you say:
"This too explains why one might want to immediatly kill any chimera exhibiting human traits, since it would be maturing from childhood hopefully it could be killed before realizing its situation."
If you consider this ethical behaviour, one should consider killing (handicapt) babies, before they realise their situation, as being ethical too. When you claim that that would be unethical, because it evokes distress with other people, then the killing of chimeras is unethical too, because it causes distres with me (and aparently a lot of other people, seen the responses). So, whatever way you turn it, it is either ethical, or unethical, in *both* cases.
"So the point is that being human requires a huge number of factors. Just as missing only a few of these does not make someone totally non-human (retarded people) giving a sheep only one of these does not suddenly make it human."
Ah, yes, but that only pospones the question. At some point, you will have a chimera that has the same 'whole brain development' as a mentally retarded person. We treat the latter as a human, with rights that we do not give to animals (being killed for experimentation, for instance). And it's not 'one iota' that makes the difference, mind you. There are any number of different mental retardness, of different severity; some light, some very heavy. If you ever worked with handicapt people, you will have an idea what I'm talking about.
Those that lack their frontal lobes, for instance, do NOT act as a human. They have no coherent thought and show less intelligence then a chimp, and I doubt they would even pass the self aware test with the mirror. Yet, we still consider they have human rights. If you create chimeras with the same (albeit very low) human capacities that those handicapts have - even when it can't really be clearly defined if they are human - shouldn't that chimera have the same rights? When the answer is yes, then it becomes an almost impossible ethical rope-dance, because of the various degrees even a human can be retarded. If the answer is no, then you are basically killing beings with the same (reduced) intelligence of severely retarded people; so clearly, cognitive capabilities can't be the measure to define 'human'. Certainly, the issue is full of ethical problems, far beyond the mere 'do they suffer pain' with normal animals.
"Likely these are related issues but many people attach ethical import to being born from human parents and other factors for a variety of reasons (avoiding slipperly slopes and the irrational emotional attachment we have to those things we recognize as human)."
I do not subscribe to that notion, and what's more, I think it is untenable. If the time arrives that a chimera (or an AI, for that matter), can reason, feel empathy, show all the signs of intelligence that a human has, I doubt anyone would claim they do not deserve human rights. (Well, you always would have those people, after all, even today you have those that claim some people do not even deserve the same rights). Regardless, there wouldn't be a basis to claim that, because someone isn't born from human parents, he inherently doesn't deserve any human rights. If that would become law, then chimeras that had 99,99 percent human tissue, and 0,01 percent animal genetics, could be devoided of human rights - even when it shows NO difference (without genetic analysis) that they are chimeras. Basically, it would come down to genetic discrimination, which I don't believe many people subscribe to.
"Secondly you are confusing the question I was answering, will these animals be human like in their cognitive capabilities, with the ethical notion of being human."
Ah yes, but those two are inevitable intertwined. That WAS my point: when do you consider a chimera to be 'human'? First of all; what is 'human-like'? As I said with the example of severely mentally handicapt humans: they don't have the cognitive capabilities neither, in some cases. Yet, we consider them to have human rights. What is the difference between a human that is in a vegetative state or only shows animal-like responses, and a chimera that shows the same responses? In both cases, it is not determinable which is human, cognitively speaking.
Secondly, I do not think it's necessary for a chimera to realise it is (or isn't) human. For instance, say we create a true AI. The AI may recognise that he's not human, but does that mean he doesn't deserve the same rights as humans?
The problem can't be easily solved: it involves using a premisse when one considers a human 'human' enough to have human rights, and that IS subjective. Therefor, experiments with chimeras that have possible ram
"My original comment was arguing that the creation of chimera is fine."
;-)
Mine was: it's fine if it doesn't involve (human) braintissue. When it does, it's not fine before there has been a public debate on the matter,and stringent guidelines are issued. In that light, I find it simply mindboggling that the ethical commision of Oz gives out a guideline that if the mice/sheep/whatever exhibits human behaviour, it should be killed immediately. I'm really stupified at the (lack of) logic about that. So, when a chimera exhibits a human mind, it is *destroyed*? Well, fuck...so, even if a, say, chimp/human would have the capability to intelligently protest about his treatement, thereby showing human intelligence, it is immediately put to death? So not only is a chimera possibly (mis)treated as an non-sentient animal, it can't make protest about it in an intelligent way, or it is killed? Sounds like a deadly catch-22 to me. What craziness is this? And that from an ethical commission, en plus! Just shows how retarded some ppl are.
"My second comment argued that humans are not inherently better than any other species."
I can agree with that, though I should say I'm egocentric enough to feel that I (and other people) are more important then non-sentient animals.
"I am personally one of those animal rights activists that you mentioned."
Hpmf. I have some problems with at least some parts of those movements (well, the people within). I often find there is a lack of consistency. For instance, you have those that protest hunting and fishing, but still see no problem in eating meat themselves. I would argue that, if the hunting and fishing is done for food, they have no right to speak. In fact, the breeding of animals for food is WAY less 'ethical', often, then when you go hunting.
As for yourself: I can't say if you're inconsistent or not. It would depend on why you eat (or don't eat) animals, or why you object to it (or not). In all honesty, I have difficulties reconciling being 'an animals rights activist', and killing them, whether you kill them 'respectfully' or not (they're dead in any case, after all). I do think there is a contradiction there.
I,for one, eat animals too, but I'm not making excuses. I, too, prefer a clean quick 'respectful' killabove maltreating it, but I'm aware that's more to ease my consciece a bit. Fact is, I'm not sure if eating animals is actually all that ethical...honestly, I suspect those not eating animals (vegetarians and the lot) may, indeed, be on a higher ethical level then myself on this point. I just don't give enough about it (when it aren't apes or dolphins) to pass the oportunity for the taste of a juicy piece of meat. For me, the ultimate line is intelligence/self-awareness, at least on a cognitive level.
I say this, because, even when a handicapt person would not pass the self-awareness mirror-test, for instance, I wouldn't start eating him. But that's not on a rational level; it's just that I'm conditionned, like everyone else, with mores and ethics of my culture, that go beyond logical ratio. That may, or may not be a good thing, I dunno. For a consistent ethical guideline, you need logic, though. The premise one starts with, however, is, as always, subjective.
"This has been a fun back-and-forth though."
Indeed, like with all my debates!
"You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human."
Ofourse I am. Everyone uses the morals of his time/culture. You are fully right about morals 300 years ago, but that doesn't come into the picture, because I'm not judging chimeras with the ethics of 300 years ago, but of those of today. And today, with the current ethics, I claim there is an ethical question when animals get human brains. Using anything else would be less logical: there is no reason to judge something with ethics of hundreds of years ago, and we can't know the ethics of the future, so those options would either be obsolete or unknowable.
Note, however, that, while I'm reluctant to call it social evolution, there at least seems a tendency in our ethics to be more 'soft'; we continiously consider people (or even animals) as having increasing rights, not the reverse. so, when pondering future ethics, it is rather more likely that things continue to evolve along that line, instead of reverting (to the point where blacks aren't considerd humans anymore once again, for instance). I think this is based on logical 'ethics', according to the philosophy of Kant (well, not that people all read or follow Kant, but his basic observations about what can serve as guidelines for is 'ethical' is, indeed, basic because humans have the tendency to follow it.
So, actually, I'm not sure what your argument was. I'not judging people 300 years ago according to the morals of those that did unethical things, indeed. I'judging them according to the moral principle that one shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't like other to do to you. And, even in their time, there were those that had moral and ethical objections to it, so it's not as if it was that undebated. And, even more: you act as if those ethics were universal, but I doubt the victims had the same opinion (that they weren't human)...so saying I'mnot using the morals of those times is misleading. I'm not using the morals of the majority of the perpetrators; THAT is true.
"If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general."
I do. And I'm not the only one. Animal rights groups are all over the globe, exactly because people do care about the issue.
"The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human."
Exactly. Therefor, it follows that it is exactly when the brain gets 'transplanted' into animals that you create aditional ethical problems.
"If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?"
Perhaps so, but as I said, it is futile to contemplate on future ethics which we can't know. However, I would note that it, indeed, becomes morally wrong when you slaughter 'animals' which you know are sentient. so, while future generations may regard us as barbarians because we slaughter sheep today (possibly rightfully so), at least it was out of ignorance and the impossibility to discern that they were sentient. I really doubt the conquestadores of 500 years past really felt there was no way to discern whether or not blacks were sentient. Seen the commentary of some of them, at least the thought must have accured that they were, in fact, humans(actually, pleadings that they were humans were offciial noted already in the 17th century before the spanish court,
"In short it isn't just human neurons which make us human but the whole brain development system at work in babies."
;-)
If it's the 'whole brain develoment system' which makes a human human, logic dictates that mentaly handicapt individuals, like, say, those that miss their frontal lobes (creepers in english, I believe), are not humans neither.
Thus, again following the same logic, it would be fully justified breeding or cloning such handicapt 'persons', and testing on them. In fact, it would be MUCH easier and efficient, to actually use those humans (which aren't humans in accordance with your definition) then to take animals. In any case, since at least some handicapts do not posses a "whole brain development system", those aren't humans, and experimenting on them pose no ethical questions.
Agreed?
(I won't invoke the Nazi's, because then the debate is over, I've heard
"What happens is if we deem them to be close enough to human, we will give them "human rights."
Which is exactly where ethics come into play: when is 'enough', enough?
"We would not kill a human being to harvest their organs (in theory), so we would extend the same courtesy to the sheep. If they become sentient, who knows, maybe they'll get to vote. That's what happened when we finally realized that black people and women were sentient."
Which, again, points EXACTLY to the problem (and the fact it is an ethical issue): blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified. So, one might argument that things, eventually, sort themselves out (though, even for blacks today, it hasn't completely) - but in any case, it doesn't make it right what happend, and it also doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't an ethical issue.
It is entirely possible we will treat chimera's for hundreds of years, just as we treated blacks in earlier times. THAT is why we have to prevent it in front, and not have the attitude of "we'll see where it leads to". You just can't aford such attitude when there is the possibility you are killing intelligent animals. I don't know what ethics you uphold, but I, for one, consider killing sentient beings as immoral.
And yes, it's difficult, especially with chimera's, to know where the fine line is drawn. I would say, there is little to counterargument when it involves liver, hart, blood, etc. But it DOES become problematic when you speak about human brains. Sooner or later, you *will* create something that maybe isn't human, but ain't an animal neither. I fail to understand how someone fails to understand this IS an ethical problem, better to be considered in advance, then letting it abide and abuse themfor centuries 'like with the blacks'.
"But isn't it a scientific question to determine at what point a human life begins?"
LOL
I'm all for science, but this statement is impossible to uphold. By its very nature, it's an ethical thing, NOT a scientific thing.
You yourself gave some exmples of that. All over the world, there are myriad of 'ages' at which a foetus is considered worth the protection of human life...and they useally all have something scientific for it. But it *can't* say WHEN something should be considered human life, purely based on science, because it depends on the premise one takes.
For instance, if you consider a foetus 'human' when it starts developping a brain, then science can say when (more or less) this happens, yes...but there is nothing inherent that would indicate it's only THEN that it should be considered human.
and in fact, it doesn't: some take the development of the spinalcord as basis, some the developement of nerves, etc. For all this 'fine lines' there is something to say, and science can indicate when it happens...but it never will be able to determine WHEN a human becomes human, because that depends on your definition of what it is, what defines a human.
I for one, concluded that the most logical one would be when the melting of the egg and spermcel occurs (thus, when the cell is neither a spermcel, neither an eggcell, but something that, if conditions are set right, will, eventually, turn out to become a full blown baby and even an adult later in life.
Mind you, that I'm agonstic, so I didn't base myself on any religious dogma or such. I just find that, of all suggested 'boundaries', this really makes the most sense, at least when using logic. It's also (in current times), I'm quite aware, impossible to uphold in a pragmatical sense, since you can't actually force women to keep their baby/foetus - unless you derive them of essential liberties (which, as a libertarian, I wouldn't like to see happen).
This makes it a VERY though ethical dillema, in my view. Basically, one kills one human for the comfort of another, but there isn't really anything one can do to stop it. So, it might be that abortions are ethically wrong (for a change the religious bunch might be right), but their is no real solution to the problem.
One counterargument about the "sperm swimming" thingy; you are making a factual error. Let a spermcell and an eggcell 'swim' in ideal condictions, and both will die at *their* end of the life-cycle, which is rather short (72 hours for sperm, I believe). So, on themselves, neither one has the possibility to become a human person. Once combined, it might. Since this is the first instance, and a pretty clearly defined one, it's also the most logical one. None of the other alternatives are really as convincing.
The same is true with animals that have human brains. At some point, one comes to the ethical barrier, and that point can't really be determined by science alone. One could try, and say that something which doesn't have the same thinkprocesses as a person shouldn't be considered a person. But, following that logic, one must be consistent, and decide that all creatures without those processes are not humans (and thus, eligible for testing/harvesting/whatever). But then: do babies have neural processes that makes them a person? What if chimeras have the same level of brainactivity? And what IS the level of neural activity or behaviour before it to be considered human anyway? What about creepers (don't know if that is the correct english word); humans that are born without the frontal lobes (or other parts of the brain, or ganglions)? Those are, in effect, not anything else then on the level of animals or even plants. So why not just experiment on those handicapts? Why should a human body with no human brain deserve more protection then an animal body with a human brain?
As you can see, those issues ARE nothing but ethical dillema's, and science can't really help us with it, because you first need a premisse to start with.
"Stealing a woman's purse is wrong, copying 2000 DVDs and selling them for money is right (of course)."
And not without merrit: when one steals a woman's purse, she no longer has that purse. When one copies a song, the original song is still there.
I wonder why you added 'selling them'? Wouldn't it be wrong (because you were being ironic) anymore if they didn't sell it, but just distributed it freely?
Point is, copying music isn't stealing at all, whatever the RIAA may claim. It may be copyrightinfringement, but it's not stealing.
"The day after they put their separate library on line, googlebot will index and assimilate it anyway..."
We are the Google. Resistance is futile.
"Yes, I am aware of how stupid I am."
;-)
How comes? Is it that obvious?
"Nothing beats the sheer bandwidth of a 767 filled with dual-layer DVDs sent hurtling at some destination."
Exept an Airbus A380 filled with dual-layer DVDs sent hurtling at some destination.
So, clearly, a european airplane is better then an afri...I mean, american one.
"Then, you can probably teach native English speakers a thing or two."
;-).
Rest assured, superfluous syllables do not restrain me from exactly doing that *already* (albeit not neccesarily about the english language