[ExI] Morphological freedom and its limits

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> A bit quiet here. I assume everybody are busy bringing about the
> singularity. Or the list is on holiday again :-)
>
> In any case, here is a discussion topic: I am going to give a talk on
> morphological freedom in a few weeks, discussing how different conceptions
> of morphological freedom can approach questions on what human enhancements
> and extensions are ethical or wise. So, dear list, what are your views on
> how to draw lines about what modifications are "right" or "wrong"?
>

The same as for any technology: it is not the technology itself that is
inherently good or bad, but the uses (actual and intended).

For instance, nuclear weapons are pretty much only useful for taking out
cities.  This is bad.  They are only allowed to exist in the context of
convincing others with nuclear weapons that, should they choose to destroy
our cities, we will destroy theirs, therefore nuclear weapons do not get
used.

Likewise, cruise missiles and similar weapons are only allowed in
explicitly military contexts.  Civilian law enforcement has no legitimate
use of them, therefore people object when said law enforcement obtains or
seeks to obtain them - let alone non-government actors.

On the flip side, the dangers and annual death toll from privately owned
automobiles have been well documented, yet they are so incredibly useful
that they are allowed (within limits to try to make sure that they will be
used for benefit - and note that most of the concerns about self-driving
cars revolve around making sure they will still be used for benefit).

Evil may lurk in the streets, but it was never the streets that were evil.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151115/608c9a2b/attachment.html>