Upload
kimberly-lane
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
James HughesExecutive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
April 11, 2010 – Manchester UK Beyond the Body? Perspectives on Enhancement
"The posthuman will come to see us (the garden variety human) as an inferior subspecies without human rights to be enslaved or slaughtered preemptively. It is this potential for genocide based on genetic difference, that I have termed "genetic genocide," that makes species-altering genetic engineering a potential weapon of mass destruction." (Annas, 2001)
Senator Kelly: "Are mutants dangerous? We license people to drive."(X-Men) Dr. Grey: "But not to live."
Can we distinguish the two?
Fundamental rights – health, life, bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty
Derivative rights – the right to own a gun
The threshold for restricting fundamental rights is higher than for derivative
Setting aside libertarian claims to absolute freedoms…
Liberal social contract permits restrictions on liberty that reduce Injury to others Self-injury The right to bear arms
Knowability of tangible risks of enhancement technologies
Likelihood of malicious use, genocide, inequality, moral chaos, eternal damnation
Balance of costs of restricting liberty with likelihood*magnitude of harms
Maximalist assessment of risk
Bioconservative risk estimates grounded in yuck factor so that tech bans seem only logical policy
More options than to celebrate or ban
Dual use dilemmas not new: Many useful things are
potential weapons Many things have
catastrophic risks if used carelessly or maliciously
Restricting dangerous use while permitting beneficial use
Mandatory: literacy Universal access and
subsidized: health Laissez-faire: electronics Licensure: driving,
flying, guns, opiates Only state personnel:
automatic weapons Banned: WMDs
Control of tons of metal: Age restriction Drivers’ licensure Licensure of vehicles Type and condition of vehicle Periodic re-licensure Loss of license for infractions
No age restrictions or licensure for cellphones, but Bans on use of cell-phones in
cars
Regulations By age By training and
licensure By occupation By proof of legitimate
use By location
The 4400: 50/50 chance of dying
or getting a superpower
All superpowers different
50% mortality, no consistent outcome
high likelihood of self-injury and social disruption
Unkillable people would be more dangerous.
Regulate superlongevity/healing?
Intelligence is, in general, a good for individuals and society
How smart is dangerously smart?
Restriction of certain kinds of knowledge for security reasons
Extended cognition: restricting hackers access to computers
Politicians, journalists, religious leaders?
Supersight Superhearing Echolocation X-ray vision Same rules as govern
eavesdropping, spying, voyeurism
An issue in athletics, but not for society
Although it would facilitate crime
No regulations now on physical strength or licensure of martial arts
“excessive force” in self-defense
Same rules as civil aviation and parachuting?
We don’t currently regulate acting or makeup
But we do “identity theft”
Licensure for use of dangerously powerful AI
Self-willed machine minds must be proven to be limited and responsible enough to wield their own powers
Drug and device safety approval procedures
Licensure processes to demonstrate maturity, control and responsible use of dangerous enhancements
Laws to punish criminal use
Right to health, longevity, bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty are presumably fundamental
Rights to drive, own guns, fly, superstrength are presumably derivative
Mandatory: no risks, no violation of fundamental rights, with individual and social benefits
Universal access and subsidized: minimal risks, requires consent, social benefits
Laissez-faire: to ban would violate fundamental rights
Licensure: derivative rights, but some social benefits: driving, flying, guns, opiates
Only state personnel or banned: strong social risks
James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
[email protected] http://ieet.org