[extropy-chat] Declaration of Independence

Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
Fri Nov 26 20:55:17 UTC 2004


--- Kevin Freels <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> While we are discussing some issues regarding the
> Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, I
> was wondering if anyone knew of a movement to change
> the words "person" and "people" to read "intelligent
> beings"of something similar. Currently all rights
> guaranteed in the Constitution are granted to
> "people" and nothing more. If you go deeper, you
> begin to realize that a "person" is not very well
> defined. When the constitution was written, blacks
> were considered to be less than human and therefore
> were not allowed equal rights as whites. It seems
> that now would be a  good time to replace the word
> "person" with something else, or at least redefine
> "person" as any sentient being. 

In theory, that may be a fine idea.  In practice,
setting up these definitions long in advance of the
reality causes all kind of problems.  There are no
"sentient beings" other than humans at this time,
unless one counts apes and dolphins, who are unable to
function as humans in human society (even aside from
their different bodies).  Any such movement would have
to address those who - as a species (or equivalent),
rather than just individually - are likewise unable to
function.

What if, say, someone were to genetically engineer a
breed of humans who would, upon receipt of a chemical
signal "signed" in some difficult-to-forge (but
time-dependant, so not simply clonable) manner, become
receptive and extremely susceptible to suggestions
broadcast on a certain radio frequency (that being the
"message" of the chemical signal)?  They would be
sentient most of the time, and might even voice a
desire to have their susceptibility removed.  But when
the chemical hits - which might not be easy to detect
- they would become like programmed robots.  Should
they be accountable for their actions - or able to
vote - under such conditions?  If not, then what
happens if one of them commits a crime or regrets
their vote and claims to have been under the
influence, again if the chemical is difficult to
detect?  (Without witnesses or evidence from a week
ago, how do you know someone was drunk a week ago?)

Yes, there can be answers to the above, but that's
just scratching the surface.  There are a lot of such
special cases that would have to be thought out - so
many, that it is not worthwhile to do so this far in
advance of when they might actually matter.



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list