[ExI] Morphological freedom and its limits

[Anders Sandberg]

On 2015-11-15 22:12, BillK wrote:
>
> One way to look at it is to come from the other direction and consider
> all the ways that it could be used for bad purposes. (And then start
> making laws against these uses).
Laws are beside the point here. They are just one tool among many 
(taxation, regulation, social norms, exhortations not to do it...) to 
stop something bad from being done. The interesting part to me is (1) 
why is modification X bad, and (2) how do you draw the line between 
acceptable and bad?

But I do really like the approach. List bad enhancement uses, and then 
let's figure out why it is bad.

> Identity theft - Should it be allowed to copy another human?
Note that the crime identity theft involves faking identity in order to 
acquire benefits that properly belong to someone, or to do things the 
other guy gets blamed for. This is uncontroversially a bad thing. It is 
less clear that me taking on your appearance, mannerisms or even DNA is 
doing something bad if I have no intention to benefit from you. There is 
likely a confusion risk and maybe you can claim that you own your 
appearance, style and DNA.

> Persuasion - Should a super-charismatic persona be allowed?
There are already charismatic people around, and for the most part we 
love them. We are just concerned that a supercharismatic character will 
manipulate us in selfish or dangerous ways... yet the usual smilers 
already do it pretty well. One take would be that there really is a 
level of persuasion that is unacceptable because it allows them to exert 
will on us reliably enough that our will becomes overruled. Another take 
would be that persuasion through the usual channels - good arguments, 
winning ways, a nice face - is something we understand and can handle 
using our normal mental firewalls, while other methods - subliminal 
signals, pheromones - might circumvent our firewalls and hence be 
unacceptable.

> Beauty - Will ordinary / ugly people become outcasts?
Here the bad is positional. If some get enhanced with a positional 
goods, every non-enhanced will be worse off (another classic example is 
height). Preventing positional enhancements is a social coordination 
issue, where we may want a policy that benefits everybody but has a 
temptation to defect.

> Strength - Should weaponised super-strong humans be allowed?
Presumably the bad here is that superstrong people are potentially 
dangerous, and beyond some point the risk to others becomes unbearable 
and J.S. Mill's harm principle can be applied.

The reversal test is an interesting tool here. Would we be better off if 
everybody were weaker, so we were less able to harm each other? It seems 
that it would make us do less punching and kicking, but since the major 
harms are tool- and weapon-induced, strength might be a red herring.

Incidentally, I considered issues of enhancements in regard to 
punishment a while ago. If you are enhanced and go to jail, can you be 
(legally and morally) disenhanced? Current laws are pretty strict on 
*some* aspects of bodily integrity, but clearly implanted weapons or 
other enhancements making you dangerous will trigger the strong rules 
about maintaining order.


-- 
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University