Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
Robots, Clones, And Androids
Future technology will likely allow us to create robots/androids that look & think like us. Likewise for human clones. How should we handle the ethical concerns and keep them from becoming mere slaves?
by Dan Steward
(libertarian)
Monday, November 17, 2008


Robots/Androids:

The term "robot", it is said, originated from the Czech word for forced labor. Robots in early fiction were considered not much more than menial laborers, held in perpetual serfdom. The notion that they would have the capability to possibly gain sentience, and therefore rights as independent free beings, was not always a major consideration regarding their existence.

Of course there is a need for industrial robots, technology would take massive backwards steps, should we abandon current research and implementation of robotics technology. Personally, I've got no problem with a "Roomba" type vacuum cleaner, robotic toys or any other applications.

Where there is concern is when we make the robots look, think, and act like us.  These androids, should they have or eventually develop a self awareness, have the potential for becoming a race of slaves. That should not be allowed to happen. If you doubt such a horrid scenario coming into existence, perhaps you may wish to look at it this way:

An android made up to look like an anatomically correct attractive woman. "Her" entire life is in subservience to a wealthy owner, as she is his willing sexual/domestic slave through programming that will not allow her to object to any potential abuse ever. She is a mere plaything that may be passed around to his friends for their lurid amusement without any repercussions, ever. She may be shouted at, misused, prostituted, worked endlessly, physically harmed, or even threatened with deactivation or dismantling for non-compliance with even the slightest whims of her "master".   

If we create those types of robots/androids in our future, them we must allow them rights just as we now have them. A right to contract, to leave an abusive situation, rights to own property and free association for all. We must make them our friends lest they be our slaves.

Human Clones:

The same standard may also be held for human clones. If we cloned a human liver, it would be the living equivalent of a dumb 'bot that works on an assembly line, or chases the cat as it picks dirt out of the carpet. Technology that would grow organs would simply create pieces of meat, suitable for transplant procedures should be encouraged should it show a need to save lives.

Our real danger lies in growing a complete person. A being that exists mainly for harvest of it's essential organs, to be sacrificed for some nefarious "greater good" thus ending it's own life. It will have lived it's life for the sake of other beings. Whether they were deserving of such a sacrifice would not even be questioned. My personal take is that on any occasion or circumstances, is that they would not deserve such a fate.

However, if it were ever possible to grow an entire human being that is alive and aware of itself should be of course, out of the question. Such a being would be yet another playtoy of the rich and powerful. It would exist to satisfy the needs of those who wish it only to be grown for "spare parts" or satisfaction of the prurient interests of those foolish enough to deem themselves "better" than the clone, because it isn't a "real person" with rights or feelings that matter.

With all power, once we release that genie from the bottle, such power over the lives of living, thinking, beings will be abused. Oversight to insure abuse will not be committed will be spotty at best. With that in mind, the dangers vastly outweigh the benefits of cloning entire human beings, so I am totally against making people up from whole cloth.   

There are just some places that you shouldn't go when dealing with nature and technology. I am eternally hopeful for mankind making the right and decent choices when the time comes.

With Liberty,

Dan Steward
 

©2008 Dan Steward, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, November 17, 2008
Last modified: Monday, November 17, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Dan Steward only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Steward is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Dan Steward of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

More Articles By Dan Steward

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Jonathan
Date: 2008-11-17 17:33:39

I agree with you rpremise but not your examples.

 "An android made up to look like an anatomically correct attractive woman. "Her" entire life is in subservience to a wealthy owner, as she is his willing sexual/domestic slave through programming that will not allow her to object to any potential abuse ever. She is a mere plaything that may be passed around to his friends for their lurid amusement without any repercussions, ever. She may be shouted at, misused, prostituted, worked endlessly, physically harmed, or even threatened with deactivation or dismantling for non-compliance with even the slightest whims of her "master"

 

This would be awesome if you ask me and I bet it would reduce violent crimes at the same time

 

Report violation

Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-11-17 18:28:16

 Robots are machines we build to serve us. We should not build them with human consciousness for two reasons;

1) the questions you raise about how they should be treated: Are they human, do they have rights, do they have the right to vote, are they Democrats?  :-)

2) They could easily develop intelligence superior to ours. And at that point they might ask; what do we need humans for?

Clones are are a different kettle of fish. They are  human, equivalent to the identical twin of another human. They would be born in the same manner as you and I although their conception might be different. Still they would be flesh and blood humans with DNA and indistinguishable from other humans. They should have the same rights as other humans, at least in the US.

 

Report violation

Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-11-17 21:13:02

I say we have plenty of issues today to be worrying about future hypothetical issues that may never happen.

Report violation

Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: 2008-11-18 08:15:44

Posted By: trd
Date: 2008-11-17 21:13:02

I say we have plenty of issues today to be worrying about future hypothetical issues that may never happen.
 
And yet you found it interesting enough to read. Thank you for reading it.
 
Not to be gross but there is an actual Japanese robot out there, she is what many men would consider physically attractive (check on wikipedia, under "robots" for the story & pic). Now just how much"female parts" would have to be added to her for any pervert with enough cash, to be able to use her, the same way a man could use a "blow up doll"? 
 
Most people are good folks, and I'd like to hope, absert of such a desire to use androids for their own strange desires. The technology is already here in place to some degree.
 
Could "she" be overworked or have feelings and understand she is being abused? Of course not, yet the potential for abuse still would exist to some degree.  
 
With Liberty,
 
Dan Steward
 
 

Report violation

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-18 09:28:53

Hey, Danny boy, maybe you've forgotten about me!

Here is a copy of my response to your "property" article.  I hadn't heard back from you.  So I thought I would make sure that you saw it.

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-17 09:12:06

Dearest Dan,

It seems that your argument has now reached the precipice.  It teeters on ONE WORD that you think still holds it together ~ "keep".  And, even THAT WORD wasn't used in the context of "ownership" it was used in the context of where something RESIDES.  Ha!  Ha!  Well, let me push you the REST of the way, Mr. Liberty, since you don't seem to realize how tenuous your point has become.

Here is the statement you made in the headline of your article: "If you truly own your own property then it should at the very least, pass the following simple test.  Are you legally allowed to dispose of or use it, as you see fit?"  I'm afraid there's no "KEEP" mentioned at all there.  Your point STRICTLY rests upon the notion that SELLING something PROVES OWNERSHIP. 

You do use the word "USE" in your statement, however this is laughable in its naiveté.  If you OWN an automobile, it doesn't give you any RIGHT to drive it (use it) any way you wish.  Your speed is regulated, when you can cross intersections, how old you must be, and whether you are inebriated or not.  Blah, blah, blah.  Another one down for Mr. Liberty.

Any COURT OF LAW IN THE LAND is going to determine OWNERSHIP based upon your ability to show TITLE, DEED, or BILL OF SALE.  The test of OWNERSHIP in NO WAY involves your ability to SELL or DISPOSE of it; in fact, you would be PREVENTED from doing so if you couldn't SHOW OWNERSHIP of the thing you were trying to dispose of.  Even your HEIRS would have to give it up if someone else could show TRUE OWNERSHIP.

Lastly, let me just knock this one out of the park by saying that NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH SOMETHING ~ as you say: The true test of actual ownership of property is that you, as owner, may trade, keep, sell, give away, leave to one's heirs, or otherwise dispose of it as said proper owner sees fit, with no exceptions nor any intereference involved, from any provate or governmental body, ever. Ownership is absolute."

In order to do ANY of these things, you must FIRST be able to PROVE OWNERSHIP.  Otherwise, the REAL OWNER can take whatever it is you have AWAY FROM YOU ~ legally, and permanently.  If you don't have a RECORD of ownership, and someone else DOES, you lose, buckeroo!  TITLE, DEED, or BILL OF SALE always determine OWNERSHIP.  And, I think that makes a GRAND SLAM for Master C!   Ha!  Ha!  Ha!

Try again sometime when you want to debate whether marshmallows are candy or cookies, Mr. Liberty.  I think that's the level of your ability to unravel the difficult issues of life.  Ha!  Ha!

Master(ful) C

 

Report violation

Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: 2008-11-18 12:59:47

I saw your response to my article on property rights. I don't think that THIS particluar article, dealing with the rights of clones and androids is the proper place to respond to it.

I suppose however that if you think differently in the matter, so be it. I suppose also that it doesn't bug you that when people on this site might say the words "that guy has a lot of class", that they would never be referring to the likes of you.

Like to know why I didn't respond to your latest rant? It's simply because you have become tiresome, boring and obtuse in every  interaction I've had with you. 

You accuse others of what actually only you do. You violate the terms of service of this site and have had at least two of your responses to me removed, due to your constant cheap shots, nonsensical analogies and vulgar harrangues you can't seem to exercise any self control on your part to end.

I retain the right to ignore or respond to you at my leisure, Carl. I know it's an alien idea to someone literally obsessed with control over others like you are, but the idea is commonly called "freedom". 

With that in mind you are free to stand there in the middle of the street holding your bag of marbles, wondering why nobody wants to play with you, until the snow piles up to your neck.   

Of course you'll take the low road and then claim yet another unearned "victory" of what you mistakenly perceive to be your "superior logic" simply because others have tired of listening to your trash talk and refuse to play your goofy games.

Of course being a libertarian also means that I believe in your right to eternally act in a manner that only shows how easily you are able to delude yourself.

With Liberty,

Dan Steward

 

 

Report violation

Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-18 13:31:29

Holy malarky, Batman ~ Danny boy went off that cliff!

 Ha!  Ha! 

I knew you would see that I had hit a GRAND SLAM and closed the door on your argument for SELLING as a condition of OWNERSHIP. 

Glad to have had you serve up the PITCH, though.  It was really SWEEEET sending it over the wall!

Mighty Master C

 

Report violation