[extropy-chat] Transhumanist Ethics

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at gmail.com
Tue Jun 29 04:46:13 UTC 2004


On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT), Robert J. Bradbury
<bradbury at aeiveos.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

Well, actually human beings do a great number of things that they
don't really consider justified at all.  They practice rationalization
to justify it at the time sort of.  But this is not really
justification.

But yes, it is true that sometimes one needs to make difficult
decisions to do the most good or least harm possible in a situation.
   
 
> 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).
>

I don't see that something being workable leads to it being morally
right.  I am not that much of a utilitarian.  And of course the
standard of what "working" consists of is not always so simple.

 
> 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. 

This would be sacrificing your life far too cheaply.  The amount of
good you can do is much larger than the amount of good that may come
of some targeted assasination - especially as simply removing Sadaam
or any such figure doesn't remove the many factors that led to a
Sadaam.  These  factors may quite likely lead to as bad or worse after
such an intervention.


> 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.  

Thus far, removing Sadaam from power has not turned out quite that way.

> 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.
>

 If you start thinking like that you will have no end of targets,
including perhaps some much closer to home.    I understand some of
the sentiment quite well.  Right now I am wrestling with how I can
stand to continue to work  in the above-ground economy when over half
of what I make is taken by the government and much of that is used for
purposes that range from pernicious to out and out atrocities.   I am
deeply sickened by much that is done in my name and with the product
of my efforts.

> 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.  

I think it is important for extropians to come to a good working idea
of the value of a human life.    Thanks for bringing it up.    A
possible position is that every single human being is a potential
immortal (ok, idefinitely long lived) capable in potential of
recovering from most errors and idiocies that plagued them in the
first several decades, capable in potential of endless growth in
ability and wisdom.   Using this notion it is a tragedy when this
potential is cut off in any way.   Whether it is by acts of violence,
or of punishment or by "natural caauses" it is the premature final
death of a potential immortal.

> 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.
>

We must ground ourselves at each point in the way within the context
of what is possible at that point.    This side of sufficient
technology and means choices will be made as to who gets relatively
scarce means.  Whether those choices are by a market or otherwise
choices are made. However, this is an aside from the fundamental
question of just how important a human life is.

 
> 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.  

I think this misses a step.  As potential immortals both persons have
equal value.   In the present context of scarce necessary means to
actuate immortality and no real access to backups and such, choices
will need to be made when the situation truly is either-or.    But we
must be careful to not get so caught up in the drama and angst of such
choices that it warps our perception of the true value of human
beings.


> 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.
> 

There is no need to diminish her right to life.  There is a need, for
now, to sometimes choose who gets the means to continue and enhance
their life when the means are limited.

> 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.
>

I very much agree we need to look at the question or its root of the
value of human life.   It could form an important part of our ethics
and practice.  However, I very much disagree with the notion of who is
"worth saving".   I know what you mean but there is a razor's edge
between not being able to make decisions re current context and losing
side of the fundamental value of human life.
 
> 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.
> 

Yes.  Very much so!   

> 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.
>

This is true.  Very few really grasp the open-ended potential of
sentient beings.   Most see only the limited perspective of the meat
itself and what they know of the person's thoughts, deeds and words.  
This is incredibly small compared to extropian notions of what is
possible for each person.  Most of us also still think in terms of a
limited lifetime of fundamentally programmed once (probably very
badly) meat bots that are mostly not helpful to our fine ambitions.  
We forget that on the dark days we will see ourselves as we see "them"
 and that many of "them" see us much the same.
 
> 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.  

This would be incredibly small of you and not in the least in keeping
with your professed ideals.  Do you honestly reduce all of the rich
complexity tied up in spirituality and often adhering to some religion
or other to just some intolerant and perhaps violent believers?   Do
you believe that destroying such holy sites that many of the peoples
highest aspirations are currently tied to will make them better
people?   Is it not more likely that such an act would be seen as an
act against their highest apsirations, on all they consider sacred, on
their very nature as a people?   Is anything more likely to inflame
unbridled violence and fight to the death type impulses?    There is
nothing in the above that shows the least bit of understanding or
compassion for the people whose lives and identity would be effected. 
  And it is ridiculous to assume that the people you presumably
consider "more worth" would have their potential further actualized or
their safety increased by inflaming hundreds of millions of religious
people.

>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.
>

Do you think that you stop the people from screaming to one another
what has been done?   What triage goals are actually acheived by
throwing much of the human population into such anger, fear and
fight-for-your life response?    Jurusalem being nuked would effect
peoples of no less than three western religions.  And for what?  What
huge and obvious gain is on the other side of the scales to justify
inflaming the world?  I have not seen you make the case for any such
great gain being the inescapable or even likely consequence of such an
action.   Thus I see no reason to believe your suggestion qualifies as
remotely utilitarian, much less humane.
 
> 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).  

What for?   It is not at all obvious that centralized bureaucracies
are going to make the best decisions about triage or much of anything
else.

> 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... :-?)
> 

Without freedom how exactly will we invent and market those incredible
technologies that allow us reach our potential even if most do not
understand them or approve of them or of us?

- samantha



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list