Do Humans Have the Right to Enhance Themselves? Monday, Jul 16 2007
transhumanism 12:49 am
This poll was on CNN a while ago. I don’t remember the article associated with it.
Interesting results. I discussed a similar CNN poll here last June.
My answers are “Yes, but within limits”, and somewhere in between #1 and #2 for the second question. I welcome some limits, such as limits on the rate that entities are allowed to reproduce. For more on why this is necessary, see The Future of Human Evolution by philosopher Nick Bostrom.
When significant transhumanist technologies become available and start percolating throughout the population, some may opt to live in human-only societies. Should certain segments of humanity be allowed to ban all augmented persons and enhancement prosthetics from their countries?
July 16th, 2007 at 2:05 am
I think the questions are a bit misleading, basically because they say “right”.
I think its more appropriate to ask “Do I think that humans should be limited when its coming to enhance them selfs ?”
The right is the privilege of the strong. Do we have the right to eat millions of cows ?
Yes, because we can.
Do I subjectively think its ethical ? No.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I doubt that there will be any worldwide legislation on this (although I could turn out to be wrong). What I think will happen is that different regions will have different policies and the humans will eventually diverge into multiple new species - some biological, some non-biological, and some both. The seemingly inevitable march towards speciation will cause all kind of trouble. Perhaps this will be manageable. We can look to existing ecosystems for a guide to how multiple large mammals can coexist peacefully, but bearing in mind human nature as it has manifested itself in recent history the future could turn out to be punctuated by grim genocidal struggles for dominance.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:06 am
The results of the poll are suspect, but at least the questions are being asked in a public venue. That’s a good thing.
Your last question was a nice one, Michael!
“Should certain segments of humanity be allowed to ban all augmented persons and enhancement prosthetics from their countries?”
The interesting ‘hook’ to that question is that human beings are already being enhanced. Corrective surgeries, medical implants of several kinds and types, eyeglasses, hearing aids, prosthetics, pharmaceuticals, the list goes on. So the question could easily apply to those of us who have already been “enhanced,” as well. (Eyeglasses and knee surgery, in my case.)
If we answer the question in the affirmative, we assume a posture involving a step backward from what we have already achieved. The question is: Do we force entire sub-cultures to accept those enhancements in spite of their cultural and societal norms?
Or…
Should we merely make the technology available if individuals within the sub-culture (or if the entire sub-culture, itself) change their minds?
On a personal note, nearing the age of fifty (in a mere six weeks), if I could maintain a human, bi-pedal form, and maintain my personality - the “Me” inside - I wouldn’t mind having a few ‘upgrades.’ If I had a choice, I might choose to wait until bionanotech matures for a few more years. My twenty-two y/o physical body was rather impressive. (Somebody kidnapped it and left me this old wreck in its place.) If needs must, computer chips and ’smart’ materials will do nicely for now.
July 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
More like, “Yes, because we bred them into existence for that purpose and they would all die horrendous deaths if we didn’t maintain them.”
July 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I think what would have been more useful would be to break down exactly what is meant by enhancement. I think almost everyone who like to live forever young, when that is an option. I think what creeps people out is any kind of cyborgization or deviation from the “conventional” human form.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:12 am
“Yes, because we bred them into existence for that purpose and they would all die horrendous deaths if we didn’t maintain them.”
That doesn’t address the real issue at all.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I was surprised by the percentage of people who would not oppose human enhancement. At 85% you’re already at full acceptance. This doesn’t ring true to me. I’d want to see more polling with a broader range of questions that are more specific surrounding the types of enhancements.
“Should certain segments of humanity be allowed to ban all augmented persons and enhancement prosthetics from their countries?”
This goes back to the Federalist v States Rights question or on a more local level the Home Owners Association. Freedom or Equality? Personally I think freedom should trump equality. Throughout US history this was the bias. Today we’re shifting toward equality and less freedom. So more imposed restrictions are the trend.
If a group decides they want to live within a specified context and their group agrees, then they should be allowed to do so. Even if I don’t agree with it. An assumption of not harming other individuals or impeding their freedoms. Also, damaging the larger whole is a concern, but the bias should lean toward the freedom of the individual(s).
Be skeptical of people who Know what is best for other people.
Do you really think that limitations will (or do) apply to those with money and power? Of course it won’t.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
The right is the privilege of the strong. Do we have the right to eat millions of cows ?
Yes, because we can.
Do I subjectively think its ethical? No.
More like, “Yes, because we bred them into existence for that purpose and they would all die horrendous deaths if we didn’t maintain them.” ”
THANK YOU, IanC!!
(Though, parenthetically, let’s hope an AGI doesn’t reason that, “since it is maintaining us, it has the right to dispose of us [humans, that is]” Obviously this would not be a particularly “Friendly” thing to do (or way to think), and indeed, to be sure, the analogy is NOT completely like we-are-to-cows…but…)
July 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I think there should be limits on self enhancement just because I fear what will happen when some young kids in a gang decide to give themselves wolverine claws dripping with neurotoxins and decide to go on a killing spree. You can also imagine what some serial killer might decide to do given unlimited freedom to self modify so it is not a good idea.
Of course, everything has its place. Enhancements like that might well be useful for exploring some harsh planet somewhere but if that kid wants to live near me on Earth I would feel safer if he didn’t make himself into a weapon of mass destruction.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
JS Berry wrote:
Unfortunately, all this could possibly amount to is the victim disarmament vis a vie “Gun Free Zones”.
My reasoning behind this is somewhat simple: as technology progress, access to newer, more dangerous technologies will be more and more ubiquitous. It is fundamentally impossible to protect the species — let alone the biosphere — simply by regulation.
Better to provide “backups” and “safeguards” rather than “limits.”
MCP2012 Wrote:
I’m glad my perspective bemused you.
Thankfully, any AGI we build won’t have that perspective. And even then, any AGI that developed it… simply wouldn’t have any use for us that would require our elimination. Hard to explain, but I really think that the “computronium scenario” is an example of our limited comprehension of the universe.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Eye sight that is 2 to 4 times better than 20/20…
Cross posted from advancednano Michael Anissimov over at Accelerating Future discusses CNN polls target=blank>that…
July 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Thanks much, IanC. Yeah, my intuition is that Friendliness can (and hopefully/probably SHALL) evolve, due, at least in part, as I’ve said before, to a concurrent co-evolution of IA and brain-interface tech along with AGI. The next 10-15 yrs well surely tell…Which is to say, I think we’ll get Friendliness partially due to a developing trend toward “coalescence”. This scenario “weirds-out” some folk, ’cause they think it implies Borganization, but it needn’t lead to anything of the sort. (BUT, then again, don’t let the likes of W or Slick Willy—or Dave Rockefeller or Kissinger or Zbig B., for that matter—control or “manage” such development, or we might very well end-up in quasi-Borg crap!)
July 17th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Related: Have you seen this article on Biotech by Freeman Dyson in the NY Review of Books?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370
July 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I’m not buying those numbers at all. In America alone, something like a fifth of the population are willing to believe that the sun revolves around the earth and close to two fifths believe in The Rapture. To those folks, Human Enhancement is The Devil’s Work!
Getting them to change their minds on that is about as likely as getting you to accept Jesus over a medium rare Porterhouse.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Michael Varian: I have a good deal to say on that topic. “Thankfully” ;), I get to self-promote by way of explanation. And don’t worry — there’s pretty pictures there too. (Most concealed behind links). Sadly, it turns out roughly 2/3rds of Americans believe that evolution is “absolutely not or highly unlikely to be” responsible for the origin of humans. Reduce that to “absolutely not” and you get 1/5th. ‘Course, 18% of those polled also think the sun goes ’round the earth. And of those who think the earth goes ’round the sun, 19% answered that it takes one day to do so. I’m sure you were aware of those numbers — but they bear repeating. Especially to inform you of my level of awareness when I make the following statement:
Such individuals will not be capable of standing in the way of “progress” — it is as simple as asking them this question (and I’ve tried it successfully more than once): do you want only those people whom are out-and-out criminals to be the ones with these augmentations? Only those who would force such changes upon you against your will?
Most religious bio-luddites (the majority of politically potent bio-luddites) disagree with gun control laws. This is simply using the same logic “against them”.
‘Course, I already know how well facts and reason work in winning arguments.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
The only limits should be the same ones used to create friendly AI. After all, the danger posed by an unfriendly super intelligence is the same whether it is silicon or organic based. There’s no point in creating friendly AI if all its best efforts are undermined by super IA people.
You could argue that if the friendly AI is thousands or millions of times more intelligent than the theoretical limit for human intelligence enhancement, then people can go all the way to that ceiling and the friendly AIs will clean up all their messes. I don’t like this solution.
Then there’s that whole sticky situation about when the enhanced human is no longer human and can be properly thought of as an AI.