[extropy-chat] Declaration of Independence

[Kevin Freels]

I hardly see "functioning in society" as a basis for rights. Stephen Hawking
would not have done very well in society 200 years ago. A baby cannot
survive and cannot function in society at all. If your concern is over crime
and punishment of other "sentients", then that is a separate issue.
Likewise, your voting scenario is a problem with voter fraud and the vote
tabulating systems, not a problem of basic "human" or "person" rights.
Whether or not a person can responsibly function or vote has little to so
with their basic rights as a sentient being.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat at pacbell.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Declaration of Independence


> --- Kevin Freels <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > While we are discussing some issues regarding the
> > Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, I
> > was wondering if anyone knew of a movement to change
> > the words "person" and "people" to read "intelligent
> > beings"of something similar. Currently all rights
> > guaranteed in the Constitution are granted to
> > "people" and nothing more. If you go deeper, you
> > begin to realize that a "person" is not very well
> > defined. When the constitution was written, blacks
> > were considered to be less than human and therefore
> > were not allowed equal rights as whites. It seems
> > that now would be a  good time to replace the word
> > "person" with something else, or at least redefine
> > "person" as any sentient being.
>
> In theory, that may be a fine idea.  In practice,
> setting up these definitions long in advance of the
> reality causes all kind of problems.  There are no
> "sentient beings" other than humans at this time,
> unless one counts apes and dolphins, who are unable to
> function as humans in human society (even aside from
> their different bodies).  Any such movement would have
> to address those who - as a species (or equivalent),
> rather than just individually - are likewise unable to
> function.
>
> What if, say, someone were to genetically engineer a
> breed of humans who would, upon receipt of a chemical
> signal "signed" in some difficult-to-forge (but
> time-dependant, so not simply clonable) manner, become
> receptive and extremely susceptible to suggestions
> broadcast on a certain radio frequency (that being the
> "message" of the chemical signal)?  They would be
> sentient most of the time, and might even voice a
> desire to have their susceptibility removed.  But when
> the chemical hits - which might not be easy to detect
> - they would become like programmed robots.  Should
> they be accountable for their actions - or able to
> vote - under such conditions?  If not, then what
> happens if one of them commits a crime or regrets
> their vote and claims to have been under the
> influence, again if the chemical is difficult to
> detect?  (Without witnesses or evidence from a week
> ago, how do you know someone was drunk a week ago?)
>
> Yes, there can be answers to the above, but that's
> just scratching the surface.  There are a lot of such
> special cases that would have to be thought out - so
> many, that it is not worthwhile to do so this far in
> advance of when they might actually matter.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat