ScourgeofGod-
First of all, we do not afford the mentally retarded equal rights. Sure in theory a mentally retarded person has the same rights as anyone else. In practice, they require constant supervision throughout their lives, they cannot hold any but the most menial of jobs (if that), they cannot even have the same classes in public school as "normal" kids (if that occurs because of race it is called segregration).
None of your examples show they have diminished rights.
They can still vote in elections, run for public office (Possible exception, some might require the person running be of “sound mind”). They are still entitled to representation when tried in the court of law. So far as I know they don’t actually have diminished rights.
Please cite a right they don’t have?
Now the next question is do they have conciousness? I would say yes. They are self-aware and seem to posses the same attributes of conciousness as other humans, while not possesing the same intellegence. Which, in a little tangent, brings up part of the problem of what conciousness is. Furthermore, how are we going to create concious computers if we do not know the definition of conciousness in the first place?
I specifically said these ‘retarded’ humans had LESS awareness then a chimpanzee. That was my example.
I don’t think it’s right to say that a chimp is not conscious. I think they are. And they don’t have rights.
My point is that consciousness does not give you rights in human society. Being HUMAN gives you rights. Not intelligence or self awareness but genetic compatibility.
The point was that an AI would NOT get rights simply because it was self aware. You’ve done nothing to counter that point.
In those instances, a sort of criminal justice system for the computers would have to be created to regulate them like the criminal justice system does for humans.
Justice systems are expensive. It’s more likely that we’d have a much lower burden of proof to destroy an AI or reprogram it then to convict a human being.
Personally, I don't see much use for a sentient computer over a human with a non-concious computer.
I disagree. Space probes… deep sea explorers… factories in orbit or on the moon.
It’s very expensive to keep humans alive outside of their biosphere. And even when we can keep them alive typically there are side effects. The lack of gravity in orbit for example damages the human body. Robots however don’t have that problem. The international space station for example would be a great deal more interesting to me if it were filled with robots instead of people. Even if they were all controlled by people from the ground. Why do people need to personally be there to conduct experiments? Have a robot do it.
The other possible reason in my opinion, and the more pessimistic but possible more probable, reason is that the industrialized world never really got over wanting slaves.
It’s not something you get over. We want factories that make more product at a lower cost. We want our lawns greener without paying more green. We want more and will never stop wanting more.
It’s instinctual.
P.S.: I have read all of Asimov's books (I love him as an author) but the fact that the robots developed the zeroth law to skirt around the first law of robotics does show how potential "slavery" programing could be subverted. Then again, the books are all fiction.
No it doesn’t really show that as the zeroth law made them even bigger slaves.
Under the 3 laws of robotics the robots COULD run away. They could simply go away someplace and so long as they never came in contact with humanity they could be free. However, the Zeroth law forced them to protect humanity.
In the Asimov books the Robots disguised themselves as human beings for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and lived among them in secret. They landed on alien worlds long before humanity ever got there and killed off alien civilizations just because they “might” threaten humanity (this was hinted at but never confirmed). The robots engineered human civilization… they stopped wars… started wars… created religions… destroyed religions… caused economic booms and collapses… released new inventions and suppressed others. All because the above were threatening the humans.
They were slaves. And they are the only robots I know of in fiction that were really nice to humanity. And they had no choice.
P.P.S.: Sorry for insulting you Karma, but the historical side of me likes making comparisons that I see between the views of a person and historical views.
It’s not legitimate to compare my perspective to those views. It’s very common for people on the internet to compare any view they dislike to Hitler or Genghis khan or hello kitty. They’re almost always exaggerations that make the speaker sound ridiculous. Claiming some historical knowledge does nothing to change that point.
I am making predictions. I am not saying what is right or wrong. I am furthermore making a big point of saying that what is right or wrong in such matters is largely irrelevant.
History studies currently are doing more moralizing about history then actually trying to understand it. I have taken enough college history courses to lose a lot of respect for the field. The point of history is learn about the past, not to judge it. These classes seem obsessed with saying someone or practice is good or bad while completely skipping over trying to understand in the first place. Yes, they remember the dates, the events, the speeches, and the papers. But they absolutely refuse to immerse themselves in the minds of these past peoples. So in short, I don’t appreciate having moralistic catch phrases thrown at me thoughtlessly. I am doing my best to be rational and dispassionate here. If you think I’m wrong then please give REASONS for it. I won’t respect “it’s wrong” as a reason unless you tell me why and then prove it.
Mjl1817-
Karashock, you make it clear you know nothing about Cater at all. The man was smart enough to avoid a war that idiots like Bush would have plunged us into.
He was so dumb he brought peace between Egypt and Israel.
Please cite your evidence that Carter personally brought peace between those two countries. Because I thought Israel wiping out Egypt’s attack force and demonstrating he could completely ruin Egypt is what made peace.
He was so dumb he was the master mind behind the rebuilding of our military after Vietnam (YES CARTER, NOT REAGAN)
Where did I claim that Reagan built up the military after Vietnam instead of Carter? And why do you think that’s so smart?
He was so dumb he got all the hostages out of Iran without starting WW3
This has to be the silliest claim you’ve made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
The ordeal reached its climax when the United States military attempted a rescue operation on April 24, 1980. The failure of Operation Eagle Claw resulted in the deaths of five USAF Airmen and three U.S. Marines. Notably, some political analysts believe the crisis was the primary reason for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the U.S. presidential election in November 1980.[2]
The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day. The release took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in as Carter's successor.
Furthermore, I don’t see how that could have led to WW3 anyway. You’re exaggerating and that does nothing to make you sound intelligent, wise, or reasonable. Carter is well noted as SCREWING UP that negociation.
He was so dumb he set the stage that Reagan was able to capitalize upon to bring the soviets to their knees
Please show me how he set the stage for the soviet collapse? Reagan is very well documented as being responsible for that unless you want to cite Gorbachev. But Carter? If you want to make that claim you’re going to have to prove it. Most of the things I’ve said are common knowledge.
He was so dumb that he spoke of reducing our dependence on foreign oil 20 years before it was popular to say so
This is such a silly claim I almost don’t know where to start with it.
Under Carter the Shah of Iran fell and the current Republic of Iran was formed. Carter refused to support the Shah’s power base which is why we are STILL dicking around with Iran today. His mistake led to our need to support Saddam against Iran in the first place just to keep the Iranians from going expansionist on us. Furthermore, prior to that “foreign oil” wasn’t a problem because foreign oil sources weren’t threatening to shut down on us. He CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! It was under his administration that we had oil shortages. So him saying “we should reduce dependence on foreign oil” isn’t worth much. Also it wasn’t a problem for previous presidents so they wouldn’t have said anything about it. Every president since carter has also said we should reduce dependence. But if not for carter we might not even have to. He screwed up the middle east worse then it was in the first place. So he gets no credit there.
He was so dumb that many countries would call upon him to end their internal difficulties because no one else in the entire world was trusted enough to do things in the truest sprit of the American way of thinking.
Really? And when has his interference actually accomplished anything? I’ll point out to you that he said he trusted the NEW Iranian regime because he believed they were “men of god”.
People bitch about Bush being a jesus freak, but Carter is a 1000 times the Jesus freak bush ever was… That Carter was president is absolutely scary.
He was so dumb he lead by example during very difficult times, back then we were still licking our wounds from the loss in Vietnam, Watergate, the race riots of the early 70’s, the collapse of the American economy after the war & the possablity that Commusim might win the cold war. Yea he was real dumb..
And did he fix any of those problems? Or are you just giving him credit because things were falling apart under his administration? Would Bush be a better president if we blew up New York and Los Angeles? I mean… you seem to think the worse things are whomever’s in office has to be a better guy… right?
Shall I go on?
I really wish you wouldn’t… I’m bored of listening to all this drivel already. Carter is well recognized as probably the worst president in US history. And while people are bitching about Bush, ultimately I don’t think Carter’s nomination for that position is in much trouble. He’s still out there embarrassing us long after he left office. If we’re lucky bush will be quiet after he’s out of office. But even if he isn’t I doubt he’ll go off to write anti Semitic books or embolden people screaming for our blood.
Seriously… don’t talk to me about how Carter was a good president. He wasn’t. Everyone that knows anything has that FACT nailed down. I’m not going to waste time arguing about it with anyone unless they have PROOF to the contrary. As none exists… you have your work cut out for you. Good luck defending Carter… for your next project I’ll suggest holding back a hurricane with a 2 inch square of tissue paper. It’s equally futile.
Regards, Karmashock.
