Life, Technology, and Ethical Philosophy
Audio of the first chapter introducing the author’s goals for the book and how he thinks 5 specific areas of science are impacting our lives. I haven’t read it yet, posting it here because it sounded like it might be a good read. So this is a reminder to me to look into it.
Add popped up on FB feed here.
I presented a paper on robotic personhood more than 10 years ago, and most people laughed at my conclusion. I said that whether a robot could pass a Turing test or not was irrelevant. Robots would be given citizenship just because people wanted them to have it. Whether or not robots will become self-aware, feel emotions, or other indices of personhood, Sophia has been granted citizenship by Saudi Arabia. Now there are problems with robotic personhood. Robots were created to do work humans don’t want to do (too dangerous) or are unwilling to do (unpleasant, monotonous, repetitive). So having robot persons do them introduces slavery all over again.
The first article below points out that at this point of development, Sophia is primarily a chabox like Alexa, not a self aware sentient being expressing emotional desires for her personal happiness. I do not think Sophia has in any way demonstrated “life” as we currently define it, and yet a legal precedence has been set. Science fiction has become science fact.
A really great article popped up on my feed by David Grimm in Science magazine. He stated that research has been done which shows cows can be potty trained, just like many other animals. My first thought was, of course, “Cool, now I can have a house cow!” but there is a deeper moral implication to this. Industrial farming locks animals up in tiny cages because its easier on the humans to sluice down a waste trough than to clean up after free ranging animals. The dairies that tried to give their cows more freedom had cow droppings every where – inside the barns as well as out in the barn yards. So utilitarian ethics reduced cows to bio-machines that produced milk and dairies became giant warehouses for cows.
The experiment cited said 16 calves were led down a corridor to a specific area technically called the cow commode. Grimm said the use name was the Moo Loo. The calves were given a diuretic so the team could control the visits. As soon as a calf peed, it was given a treat by the researcher. The team reported that 10 of the calves very quickly learned the desired behavior, and looked to the researcher immediately after they peed, some of them mid-stream. This also has the moral implication that cows are aware of their behavior. According to Grimm, the research team said cows have the cognitive ability of at least a human two year old. It took only 10 visits or less for each calf to use the Moo Loo properly.
The environmental impact could be staggering. Cow urine creates ammonia, which can transform into the highly toxic nitrous oxide. Jan Langbein, co-author of the study, said that given that there are hundreds of millions of dairy cows in the world, “studies have shown that capturing 80% of cow urine would lead to a 56% reduction in ammonia emissions.”
So rather than fear mongering about green house emissions and how toxic cows are, maybe we should just use the simple solution and teach them how to use a Moo Loo.
We live in a sick and twisted society where narcissism is rewarded and hard work and integrity are punished. We no longer have community values, we have “What’s in it for me” values. As for the “Why should I care” question, this is what happens when the people who are the biggest weasels make it to the top and you become inconvenient to their goals. The historic old-age pension plan of community life – the young are cared for by parents who are then cared for by their children when they grow old – does not exist as a societal norm in the 21st century. No, when you are old and inconvenient, we are not going to take our resources and help your life be better, we are simply going to make death the easiest choice. And package our greed and laziness in such a way that it doesn’t bother our conscience and makes you the bad guy if you object to be told to go die because you need help.
RECOMMENDED READING:
“Suicide Machine” That Lets You Experience Death Now Ready for the Public to Try
I really enjoyed this.
Looking for some comments on what people think about the new vat-grown meat. Clean language and consideration necessary for commenting. Have we reached the age of the Jetsons? Most of us are ok with technology vs nature on the issue of robo pets but what happens when its something we eat?
Also under Animal Rights:
Theme: Identity in a bioethical concept.
Location: The Center for Bioethics and Dignity, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)(USA)
June 25-27, 2020
Speakers of Interest: Joni Eareckson Tada
DEADLINE: JANUARY 17, 2020
Canadian Bioethics Society 31st Annual Conference, June 3-5 2020 (Toronto, Canada)
TOPIC: The Role of Bioethics in Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Health Technologies: Activator, Inhibitor, or Collaborator?
Go to site here
We need a health care system whose foundation is patient wellness and quality of life. Drug manufacturers have a clear conflict of interest. In an ideal world, they would have no political influence. Yet, doctors are being told they will be fired for helping people manage chronic pain by prescribing medicine that is out of patent.
We need patients to have a voice in their own care. We need doctors to have a voice. The final decision in pain management should be between the doctor and the patient. Yes, patients need to be monitored for opioid tolerance. But only because increased tolerance reduces pain reduction. Monitoring needs to be in the patient’s best interest.
Permanent opioid use under improper medical supervision has risks for creating real problems, but it sure beats the hell out of the only solution to ending the pain is to end it all. Suicide is not an effective quality of life option, and chronic pain sufferers are getting damn angry at being forced into it.—o0o—
Bioethics involves a great deal of reasoned debate, and unfortunately, a great deal of unreasonable debate as well. When people disagree they usually think there are a number of reasons for disagreeing. But it basically comes down to only 4 different components. People disagree due to FACTS, BELIEFS, LOYALTIES, and REASONING.
FACTS are empirically verifiable. Yet one person may have information the other doesn’t. While facts should be the end of the argument, they increasingly play a lesser role as society is becoming less analytical and more emotional.
BELIEFS are convictions that are not empirically verifiable. Many times people think their beliefs are factual, but the convictions have come from a variety of unproven sources that have gained credibility through repetition and emotional response. However, sometimes beliefs may be true because not all truth is empirical.
LOYALTIES come in a wide variety of flavors, and may be political, religious, ethnic, or cultural. Loyalties to one’s friends and family have a strong influence on what opinions people have and how deeply they feel about particular issues.
REASONING: If we engage at the level of reasoning, and you are not getting anywhere, check and make sure you both have the same facts. Then check what is the person’s beliefs and loyalties that are influencing him or her in the situation.
Communicating is more than just throwing facts around. It starts with being genuine about your beliefs and loyalties. But it is critically important that these two do not contradict the facts. Understanding this will help you clarify your position. And hopefully it will make you more sensitive to the lived experience of others. The most important aspect to debates in bioethics is that we are working towards an understanding of the truth. So we need to be genuine, but we also need to be truthful.