[extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics

[Robert J. Bradbury]

OK, lets try this again with a little more forethought
(and a few insights, some loudly, some thoughtfully,
injected into my thoughts).

And again this argument may be somewhat utilitarian
for most people but I AM FOREWARNING YOU.

First lets make a couple of points.

Greg and others are correct -- I do *not* have a good
background in moral philosophy or classical or
legal ethics.  I do have a reasonably good background
however in bioethics and medical ethics.  So I might
just be arguing from perspectives that many of you do
not have but the opinions are not completely based on
a lack of education.

At this point I would like to state very clearly that
the "casual" use of nuclear weapons is an application
of an inappropriate level of force to solve problems.
I probably need to go to a military or police academy
to understand better what *is* and appropriate level
of force in specific situations (I am sure this problem
has been extensively studied as it tends to dictate
things like "rules" of engagement for both military
and civilian authorities.)

That stated, I will point out that in the past under
various circumstances (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib
prison, the streets of LA and Seattle, etc.) excessive
levels of force were used that at that time were viewed
as appropriate but were later were generally viewed as
inappropriate.  Presumably this deals with the evolution
of ethics as humans evolve and become more "civilized".
If the humans did indeed wipe out the neanderthals it
was probably viewed as perfectly justified at the time.
Presumably ethics must evolve again as we become transhumans.

Now, my background in bioethics leads to things like
should deaf parents have the right to demand that
geneticists select embryos or perform gene therapies
upon their children so they are born deaf as well?
Almost all hearing people would find that to be
a repulsive suggestion.  But bioethicists have
to think about it and justify why it should not
be done.  In my reading of the messages so far,
I think Steve may be the only person who really
tried to look at the results/ethics of my suggestion
and point out why it would not work (and therefore
would be morally wrong).

In medicine people are taught about the necessity of
"triage" -- saving as many lives as you can.  Now
anyone who knows of my background knows that I place
a tremendous value on human life (one doesn't spend
over 90% of a small personal fortune trying to
jump-start lifespan extension research and *not*
care greatly for human life).  It also was not done
in caring about only my own life because as I stated
in the previous thread, I would be willing to sacrifice
my life to murder someone like Sadaam if I thought it
had a reasonable chance for success.  I would do that
based on the reasoning that an improved quality of life and/or
the lives themselves of large numbers of innocent people would be
one reasonably probable result.  In fact I would say
it ethically and morally wrong to allow Sadaam to remain
in power (perhaps even alive) knowing the past crimes he
has committed or authorized and the human lives it has cost.

Now, the time before last when I suggested an extreme
solution, Anders strongly criticized me.  I believe
the basis was the fundamental right that all humans
have to life.  We know there are fundamental differences
of opinion on this.  In the U.S. some states impose the
death penalty for serious crimes.  In many, perhaps most, other
countries it is not an acceptable form of punishment.  So one of
the questions which comes up for debate in transhuman ethics
is *when* lifespan extending technologies become available,
do people imprisoned for life (without the possibility
of parole) have a fundamental right of access to these
technologies (the right to life).  If they do not one
has effectively imposed the death penalty.  One could
extend the same argument to a fundamental right of
access to health care, to education, to cryonics, etc.
(i.e. anything which improves the chances for an individual
to survive).  We have recently seen efforts by France and
Arizona to eliminate cryonic suspensions -- i.e. an
indirect imposition of a death penalty on people who
have committed no crime.

For myself -- I do not currently believe that everyone
has the same fundamental right to life.  That is because
I perform a triage analysis on the current and future
human race.  In effect (wanting the greatest number
of people to survive now and in the future) I look at
the value of a human with say an MD/PhD medical researcher
in Western country and compare them with women with virtually
no education (they cannot even write and are instilled
with beliefs that they cannot leave their homes without
the permission of their husbands).  The only conclusion
I can reach is that the value of the researcher (from
the transhumanist perspective of saving the greatest
number of lives) is far greater than the value of the
woman.  Now you can argue that diminishing the woman's
"right to life" is not a transhumanistic perspective.
I would argue that diminishing the "right to life"
of the MD/PhD by even a small amount is a much greater
moral crime than reducing the "right to life" of
the woman in Afghanistan by even a large amount.

My conclusion -- transhumanistic ethics needs to seriously
look at this whole "fundamental right to life" question.
Because in triage situations you have to make decisions
as to precisely who is worth saving.

Now of course many of you will perhaps argue, "but we
aren't physicians or military planners -- we don't
have to make triage based decisions that arise from
huge accidents (e.g. 911) or military conflicts.
Ca-ca.  One makes those decisions all the time.
Reduce government support for health care to the
point where people have to wait months for operations --
people are going to die.  Fail to legislate cryonics as
a right everyone should have -- people are going to die.
Fail to provide sufficient education that people can uplift
themselves in changing economic times -- people are going
to die.  Allow financial institutions to behave in ways
that destroy the savings of people so they can't afford
to pay for medical care -- people are going to die.
Insurance companies failing to pay for certain medical
procedures -- people are going to die.  Fail to eliminate
belief systems that can produce people willing to commit
suicide bombings or kidnappings and public beheadings --
people are going to die.  Fail to even write letters to
your government condemning the situation in Sudan/Darfur --
people are going to die.

So I would argue that there are very few people in the world
that believe in an absolute inviolate "right to life" and
would suggest that those who claim they believe that have
not really examined reality around them closely enough to
do a very good job of turning such beliefs into reality.

Now, with regard to what I viewed as the original problem --
irrational beliefs based on the devaluation of the lives
of non-believers that are so strong that "talking" to
those believers will simply not work -- I have refined
my thoughts.  One solution *might* be a targeted
bombing of "holy sites" at times when they are least
occupied.  But this may have the consequence of making
people even angrier and more supportive of radical
Islam or Judaism.  Right now I think my best suggestion
would be to take out the satellites that focus on
inflaming radical positions (e.g. Aljazeera) and
replace them with satellites that carry everything
from education in reading writing and arithmetic,
to religious TV from more moderate clerics to
debates among biological, medical and religious
ethicists from various religions to lessons on
the history of democracy.  Follow that up with
free satellite dishes and TVs to educational
institutions and then you might begin to get somewhere.

Just to pour some gas on the fire (yes some of you
are thinking that I've done enough damage already)
it occurs to me that a "state" conducting the best
triage (i.e. saving the greatest number of current
and future human lives) would be fairly socialistic
(in the purest sense).  On the other hand a state
that is extremely libertarian is probably conducting
some form of negative triage.  One is probably sacrificing
current lives for a less regulated future environment --
in that case one seems to be placing no discounting
of the value of future lives relative to the value
of current lives.  Or one is placing a value on
"freedom" over that of human life.  (But that
is the state motto of New Hampshire... :-?)

Now with respect to transhuman ethics -- I deeply
hope that people like Mark Walker get involved in
these areas to a greater extent so minds that are
more familiar and adept at some of the various more
classical arguments than I am and at the same time
understand the aspects of a transhuman environment
make some progress in their analysis.

Robert
--------------
The opinions expressed here are my own and
do not represent those of the Extropy Institute,
The American Aging Association or any of their
affiliates.