[ExI] It might be, was Is Transhumanism Coercive?

[Anders Sandberg]

Keith Henson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:00 AM,  Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>   
>> We cannot assume nature or the parents have (or are able to)
>> provide these resources.
>>     
>
> No, but it's not hard to imagine an infectious agent that would build
> a neural interface into every person it infects (perhaps everyone)
> which would give them access to the totality of information available
> to humans
>   

Or a GPS transponder/ID tag, making sure nobody was ever lost. Or an 
implanted, infectious e-meter for instant engram detection. (sorry)

The technological feasibility of something doesn't mean it is a good 
idea. Mandatory things must be scrutinized with extra concern: because 
they might not actually fulfill the need they are intended to fulfill, 
the moral need might not actually be so compelling that it is worth the 
infringement of rights, or because they might have side effects that 
make them unsuitable. Errors are much more grave than in the case of 
voluntary things since they get imposed on the whole population.


> It's not hard to project current smart cell phones into this development path.
>   
Charles Stross said it well: the next generation will never be alone, 
lost or forget.

However, there is a great deal of difference between having lots of 
smartphones because they are so darn nifty and a rule that everybody 
must carry one.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute 
Oxford Martin School 
Faculty of Philosophy 
Oxford University