12 thoughts on “Nature Rights”

  1. One of the commenters, Amphipolis, made a good point (and I quote):

    The problem with granting legal rights to these non-human entities, as I frequently point out, is that it is a bait and switch. No one ever grants legal rights to a stream. Legal rights are granted to some person or organization who is assigned to represent the stream’s interests.

    So the stream does not gain rights. A person or organization gains rights, presumptively on behalf of the stream. But they can’t possibly represent a stream with no voice of its own. They represent themselves, their interests, their values.

    It’s this presumption that makes the entire idea absurd.
    [end quote]

    1. If my conscious mind has been transferred to a server farm living in a Virtual Village and I was an attorney prior to transfer and I wanted to keep from being euthanized why should I have to hire a meatbag to represent me in court when he/she doesn’t have a fraction of the knowledge resources available to them than I do?

  2. The artificial intelligence exemption is going to become problematic and rapidly so in the not so distant future.

    Does augmented intelligence which is part biologic carbon and part silicon count? If I’m being kept alive by the equivalent of a brain pacemaker (Michael Crichton’s: The Terminal Man ) am I no longer human because part of my brain function is being handled by a silicon chip or a WiFi Server?

    It is quite possible that within this century it may be possible to transfer or copy human consciousness to the what we might poorly reference today as a server farm. Once transfer is complete does one lose all their human rights? (See Black Mirror Episode: San Junipero)

    Should infertile couples be allowed to adopt an android child? Whither the outcome once the parents either disown the child or die?

    Worse can a near death (due to disease or injury) human parent transfer to an android form so that they may continue to support and raise their children?

    If robots with human level intelligence have no rights, what’s to prevent the re-invention of the antebellum South and the known moral consequences of living in a society based on perpetual slavery?

    1. “It is quite possible that within this century it may be possible to transfer or copy human consciousness to the what we might poorly reference today as a server farm.”

      The question at hand would then be is this an actual transfer, or is it a chatbot that simulates the person in question?

      If it’s an actual transfer, then the human in question still has rights. If it’s a chatbot, then it’s chattel.

      If it’s a “transfer” which results in a chatbot, then you’ve just committed murder.

      So, you had better be pretty sure that your process works.

      1. How would you tell? To the transferred it would be real enough right up to the point of driving your “car” into a wall at which point there is a discontinuity and you stand there next to the wreck unharmed. To the outside observer there is something going inside something that looks like a USB stick I could easily pull from its socket. So you tell me?

  3. The Three Laws:

    A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.

    A man must obey the orders given him by women except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    A man must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    1. Isn’t that what we learn in Foundation and Empire? That the robots eventually learned the best law was to leave humans to their own devices?

    2. Or you can’t augment yourself in Utah.
      In other words, in Utah, you must find a woman to pace your brain.
      They are experts and have lots of practice.

  4. The Earth has a Right to not be infested by Humans.

    If that is your belief, you go first — to show us your commitment to the notion.

Comments are closed.