Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

[Sociotard]

For fans of David Brin's uplift series:

 

http://jetpress.org/v18/dvorsky.htm

[Sundog]

Re: Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

 

I note that the author makes a common mistake regarding such issues - assumption of commonality.

 

This is the assumption that a single decision will be reached by the whole of humanity on the ethical/moral decision under discussion. While interaction between discrete groups of humans is at an all time high, and poised to improve still further, history tells us that humanity will not reach such a consensus. Massively different cultures, as exist currently in different areas of Earth and seem unlikely to be changing anytime soon, will approach the question from entirely different directions and come to differing or even opposing conclusions.

 

Thus, my personal position is that, like transhuman technologies in general, application of uplift will not choose one line of development/acceptable practice and follow it, but that we will instead likely follow all of them - for both good and ill.

[Markdoc]

Re: Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

 

I note that the author makes a common mistake regarding such issues - assumption of commonality.

 

This is the assumption that a single decision will be reached by the whole of humanity on the ethical/moral decision under discussion. While interaction between discrete groups of humans is at an all time high, and poised to improve still further, history tells us that humanity will not reach such a consensus. Massively different cultures, as exist currently in different areas of Earth and seem unlikely to be changing anytime soon, will approach the question from entirely different directions and come to differing or even opposing conclusions.

 

Thus, my personal position is that, like transhuman technologies in general, application of uplift will not choose one line of development/acceptable practice and follow it, but that we will instead likely follow all of them - for both good and ill.

 

While I agree with your general point, the likelihood is that uplift (if it occurs at all - and it well may) will be an activity initiated by relatively small groups - all of which will be embedded in one or two societies (ie: the US, Europe, and maybe Japan). Those societies - especially the biomedical society embedded in that group - do have a largely shared culture and do have a tradition of consensus seeking. So it's probably more accurate to say that although there are multiple potential approaches, the early approach chosen is likely to be only one of those.

 

And to me, it's amazing that an article like this is published in a scientific journal (albeit a theoretical article) - it suggests people are already actively thinking about the practical aspects of uplift.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

 

I note that the author makes a common mistake regarding such issues - assumption of commonality.

 

This is the assumption that a single decision will be reached by the whole of humanity on the ethical/moral decision under discussion. While interaction between discrete groups of humans is at an all time high, and poised to improve still further, history tells us that humanity will not reach such a consensus. Massively different cultures, as exist currently in different areas of Earth and seem unlikely to be changing anytime soon, will approach the question from entirely different directions and come to differing or even opposing conclusions.

 

Thus, my personal position is that, like transhuman technologies in general, application of uplift will not choose one line of development/acceptable practice and follow it, but that we will instead likely follow all of them - for both good and ill.

 

 

Just as a general observation of no relevance to the subject at all, it is possible to take a very different view of the role of "culture" in defining the views of a random human being taken from a random part of the world. One case is that culture is an extremely weak determinant on most if not all individuals partaking in that culture, and not a determinant at all on many, who may not even be able to define the unique characteristics of the "culture" in which they live, never mind elect to act on them.

[Sundog]

Re: Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

 

Just as a general observation of no relevance to the subject at all' date=' it is possible to take a very different view of the role of "culture" in defining the views of a random human being taken from a random part of the world. One case is that culture is an extremely weak determinant on most if not all individuals partaking in that culture, and not a determinant at all on many, who may not even be able to define the unique characteristics of the "culture" in which they live, never mind elect to act on them.[/quote']

 

 

That is one view, and a common one in the West, from my observation. It is not one I share. Culture, as a shared set of basic values and conceptual framework, appears to me a very strong influencer and definer of decisions, even if, indeed especially if, the individual involved lacks the self-awareness to be able to define that culture - as lack of that self-awareness would by-and-large preclude it's elimination from the decison making process.

[薔薇語]

Re: Paper on the ethical implications of Uplift

 

Just as a general observation of no relevance to the subject at all' date=' it is possible to take a very different view of the role of "culture" in defining the views of a random human being taken from a random part of the world. One case is that culture is an extremely weak determinant on most if not all individuals partaking in that culture, and not a determinant at all on many, who may not even be able to define the unique characteristics of the "culture" in which they live, never mind elect to act on them.[/quote']

 

That is one view' date=' and a common one in the West, from my observation. It is not one I share. Culture, as a shared set of basic values and conceptual framework, appears to me a very strong influencer and definer of decisions, even if, indeed [i']especially [/i]if, the individual involved lacks the self-awareness to be able to define that culture - as lack of that self-awareness would by-and-large preclude it's elimination from the decison making process.

 

I'm with Sundog on this one. Culture as the collective set of ideals and norms of the community you are raised in have an immense affect on an individual's development. Including their moral belief structure. This idea of individualism, where the beliefs of a single person are somehow mostly their own and not the product of upbringing in a specific culture is very much a Western (American mostly) concept. And indeed this idea is the result of the culture of the west (again mostly America) as it stresses a liberal (classical sense) existance.

 

And yes, the less capable you are of defining 'your culture' the more likely it is to have a strong hold on you. To relate it to another example. If someone is surrounded by a paticular smell for a long period of time they become use to it and accept it as background. They may no longer notice it or if they do it is only of the faintest hints of what it was upon first introduction. It becomes hard for them to describe the smell other than, "it is a smell." They have to remember back to its original introduction for a good refrance point in describing it. Culture is the same way. You grow up in it and adapt quickly to it. But since you don't have a way to judge it to another base line (unless you immerge into another culture) you are left thinking that it is background. And as such, non influencial.