Future Ethics

From doktorsleepless

Future Ethics

Posted by Xyz on February 24, 2008 at 2:58pm

Soundings from all you terribly alert and prescient people: what new ethical problems will be presented by outbreaks of The Future?

Genetic manipulation will be an interesting one. Primacy over one's own body is an old idea, but it's not immediately obvious that it extends down to the genetic level. One's genes are passed on to one's offspring, and if it's morally wrong to, say, take drugs during pregnancy or conception that radically increase the chance of a birth defect in the child, might passing on one's altered genes to a child also be problematic? I mean, sure, you think it's awesome to have two dicks and laser eyes, but your kid didn't ask to be a gene freak.

What do you think will be the biggest change to our ethical landscape caused by The Future?

Reply by Mark Crabtree on February 24, 2008 at 6:58pm

Kids have no say in their genes either way. But the morality of it depends a lot on the change you make, curing a genetic disorder is pretty uncontroversial and removing the genes for a vital internal organ would be obviously bad.

But when you start talking about other stuff it gets murkier with a spectrum ranging from two dicks and laser eyes to a more conservative high IQ and blue eyes.

Which I think is me agreeing with you that this is an ethical minefield.

Reply by Xyz on February 25, 2008 at 11:37pm

It's also not intuitively obvious that we have autonomy over our genes.

As an analogy, recent studies have shown pretty strongly that a good intake of folic acid by the mother makes for much healthier pregnancies, but that the full benefit can really only be realised if this intake exists before pregnancy begins, which is obviously difficult. The UK government is considering having flour fortified with it, on the basis that there are no downsides to lots of folic acid and it's the best way to look after everybody's health.

This has raised a bit of controversy, but there is at least a reasonable moral argument for this interference with people's bodies. Alterations to genes are obviously a rather more radical interference in bodies, but it's also arguable that there is even greater public interest in it. What if we all got immunised to 'flu? Had our hearts strengthened against disease? Prima facie at least, there is an obvious argument in favour of government gene control. But isn't that a terrifying phrase?

Reply by Seej Engine on February 26, 2008 at 10:38pm

Surely an ethical problem that exists today and is only going to get bigger is the divide between the haves and the have-nots. Do people born into a developed country with average lifespans over a century (and let's face facts, if people who were born into the industrially polluted smoking/drinking/dripping-eating no penicillin world of 1908 are increasingly able to see this future we live in, then our chances should be even greater for seeing 2108 as medicine marches on) have a responsibility to share their fortune and longevity with the poor bastards in undeveloped places (such as along the Kinshasa Highway) who are still lucky to see 30? What's more, just what are we going to do with all these old bastards wandering around, retired for perhaps half their lifespan, telling anyone who'll listen how they used to all crowd round two-dimensional screens only 30" across to watch a bunch of morons in a house do nothing for three months?

Reply by George R on March 4, 2008 at 4:04am

This is actually a fantastic point. The digital divide is already rather large, but once you start tossing in grinding, hell...

We're going to end up with whole new hybrids/species/newword here for people. You're going to have regular unaltered humans and these genetic freakshows that have played endlessly with their DNA. Who gets to make what decisions.

I mean, we have issues right now where a handicap ramp is going to cost 100,000 a foot in San Fran. How are we going to cater to the people with gills and folks that want to walk like chimps.

Of course, then there's AI. How are we going to handle robots that want to vote for the president? When a robot wants to run for an office, what determines what its nationality is?

We are very small creatures, and the majority of us are going to be woefully unprepared if the future comes as fast as a lot of people believe it is. You're going to have huge divides, you're going to have more social uprising, you're going to see people dive off into the opposite ends of the polar spectrum and vilify those who stand idly by in the middle.

So, more of the same really, but with, you know.. two dicks and laser eyes.

Reply by K on March 11, 2008 at 8:16am

I think you're missing a point here - grinding is, by and large, a choice. That makes it seperate from have-nots (who obviously did not choose to be have-nots) and those handicapped (which was very doubtful a choice - I can believe a few, but not many).

The implication here is that the choice factor reigns supreme. If you choose to be different, then your possible needs are subordinate to those whose needs were not chosen.

That may break down as grinders, en masse, begin to choose different needs. Numbers overwhelm all.

Reply by George R on March 11, 2008 at 9:38pm

Coming from one of the most obese cities in the US i can say that people who make themselves disabled get catered too. Especially en masse.

Before you get on my case, yes I realize some people don't have fast metabolisms, they just gain weight. I'm one of those poor saps. I have to get out on my feet and watch what I eat otherwise I'd balloon out. But in a city where there's a buffet place nearly every other block? The city encourages it. So of course they have the numbers.

But what I'm looking/focused on is the godamned grim meathook future. Like Joshua Ellis said you have 95% of the populace of the planet without access to all the lovely technologies that are out there. They're too busy trying to put food on the table and asking their god why they're continually being tested.

We've got to face facts that while grinding is fun and awesome and has the potential to do so much, the greater majority of the world isn't going to give a shit about it. In fact a good number of them are probably going to consider screwing with your body and genes as an afront to their deity of choice.

That's the future we face if something isn't brought on with a ten ton force.

Reply by Spiraltwist on February 29, 2008 at 7:27pm

What do you think will be the biggest change to our ethical landscape caused by The Future?

The few people that will force their ethics on the majority. Humanity will always be a difference of opinions, but it's in our compromises with one another that the ethics of the future will be decided upon.

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on March 5, 2008 at 11:25am

Nicely put. I think future ethics will be a messy combination of things-we-haven't-thought-of-yet and the interface where past ethical systems (especially the religious-based ones) conflict with newer approaches.

As I'm often given to rant, future shock is already here - the comms revolution brought all the world's disparate belief systems uncomfortably close together, scaring many into more and more fundamentalist/literalist beliefs in shock and fear.

The more people grind or otherwise adapt in an individualistic mode, the more the Futzys will react badly - though probably many of them will use the tech, but either to complain loudly about the sinful way others do more-or-less the same, or to develop better ways to kill those they disagree with. Meanwhile, those of us who don't give a toss about such will develop our own situational ethics in response to the tech.

Reply by Mike Hills on April 21, 2008 at 7:23am

so to you think more and more sections of society will try and drop off the Progress Train?

let's start with the Amish for example.. (from my basic understanding) they just went, yeah.. basic Agrarian is enough.. let's stop there

then you get the Neo-Cons, who seem eager to return to the simplicity of 1950's McCarthurism

and, yes.. freaking Al Queda / terrorists in general.. they seem quite intent on just plain destroying civilization.. and have sure succeeded in taking all the fun out of for the rest of us

now, we future seeking, nay creating, Grinder types.. does that make us the minority? 'cause we sure have to share the world with the rest of 'em

.. and given how much they're freaking out now, i don't think they'll really like it if/when people figure out cool bodyMod gene hacks and parts of the world become, to them one Giant freak-show they can't get their heads around...

all of which might have LEO / Space Travel worth the trouble, if only to be left alone

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 21, 2008 at 12:44pm

The thing is, the logical extrapolation of this is a species division, artificially accelerated by technological methods. So you've got two questions to ask:

1) Do the standard-issue humans who are the majority of the population owe anything to the posthumans-in-waiting?

2) Once the movement takes hold and starts creating real differences between human and posthuman (I mean at a genetic level ie differences where the overall gene pool for posthumanity is significantly different to that of base-humanity), do the posthumans have any obligations to their evolutionary predecessors?

Reply by Mark Crabtree on April 21, 2008 at 12:58pm

I think that depends on why ethics would be important on any level.

If it's some sort of desire to escape death by allowing your genes (or at least those of your species) to propogte into the future, then you don't have an obligation to the other species (assuming you can straightforwardly split old-humans and post-humans into two species). That said, if you can crack genuine imortality then you have no obligation to the rest of your species either so you may as well revert to pure selfishness.

Alternatively, if you believe that others should be taken into account just by virtue of existence, then of course the other species has rights. Although, if post-humanity is advanced enough it may not treat the base-level with an equal level of respect, maybe the sort of feelings you'd feel towards a cherished pet.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 21, 2008 at 2:13pm

I think that depends on why ethics would be important on any level.

I would suggest that ethics becomes important as a way to allow the relatively peaceful co-existence of two or more intelligent species in a shared space. Without both sides effectively agreeing to some sort of communal ethical framework, you'd have a serious risk of the co-existence breaking down completely, which is in neither group's interest.

That said, if you can crack genuine imortality then you have no obligation to the rest of your species either so you may as well revert to pure selfishness.

An interesting aspect of this is that assuming you solve the aging problem and make yourself effectively immortal, you then have the issue of resource management. It's in everyone's interest to have some form of control over how many immortals there are, assuming that you've not found some nifty way to also become a post-scarcity civilisation.

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 10:34pm

"Without both sides effectively agreeing to some sort of communal ethical framework, you'd have a serious risk of the co-existence breaking down completely, which is in neither group's interest."

I think that problem's been around a long time and is looking like it's getting worse. One of the side-effects of the future-shock of all the world's different beliefs being in such close proximity (comms-wise) is that there's no actual working structure for deciding what is ethically just between groups.

It's like the situation in WWII where Japanese troops despised Allied ones who surrendered and treated them abominably, because in the context of their ethical system the surrendering Allies were cowards without honour - and the Japanese were sadists without honour from the Allied point of view.

Multiply that by a few thousand and add the breakdown in international negotiation power resulting from the US abandoning most of the Geneva Conventions and having already weakened the (already mostly ineffectual) World Court and UN... practically speaking, the only international ethical standard these days is 'might makes right'.

The only place we're likely to see such a cross-system ethical standard would be grass-roots NGOs, or single-interest groups like Anonymous forcing the hand of the worst offenders - and I give that slim chances.

(Though I would truly like to be proved wrong on that score.)

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 10:21pm

A reasonable extrapolation of just how bad the situation could get in a pre/post-human war is in Greg Bear's 'Darwin's Radio/Darwin's Children' stories.

In short I suspect it'd get real ugly, real fast. Even if it's not a speciation event, the Have-nots will hate/fear/envy the Haves, those from religious extremes already fleeing the newer world models will have obvious targets to pick on - and frankly, many humans rarely turn away from a chance to attack those who are obviously different from them.

Also... some would even say we're pretty much already at the point where the species split is happening. I know technically the neophobes and neophiles are still capable of interbreeding - but the chances of them actually doing so are getting slimmer.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 21, 2008 at 10:39pm

That reminds me, one of the first things I thought of when I heard about the title of Doktor Sleepless was the Beggars series by Nancy Kress. Which ties in nicely to the pre/post human conflict.

That said, though - I think the nature of the conflict would depend on how far the posthumans had gotten in developing weaponised versions of their modifications, and how their numbers compared to those of the pre-humans. It would be nasty any way you cut it, though...

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 10:16pm

Interestingly, it looks like these groups (and similar) revert to fundamentalist styles morally/socially, but stay current with the tech (e.g. the sophisticated military tech exchanges of Islamic terror networks noted by the likes of John Robb, the heavy internet manipulations by Dominionist xtian groups allied with the Neocons etc). Worst of both worlds, really.

I suspect neophiles (and Grinders are neophiles pretty much by definition) will always be a minority... though once the tech comes out of the experimental stages and is released to the general public, it then becomes ubiquitous/mundane - and of course by then the Grinders are playing with the really new gear.

Reply by Kyle Rogers on April 20, 2008 at 9:41pm

I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that gene manipulation of any description could be perceived to be immoral, purely on the basis that enough people removing undesirable gene sequences from the population reduces the overall probability of any part of the species being immune to some new freaky disease (that could just as easily be manufactured as naturally originating).

Another aspect of the genetic manipulation angle : once you get the divide between humans and posthumans, you'll get the possibility of humans becoming a subclass in comparison to the posthumans, which gives you two big problems :

1) How do you prevent discrimination against humans in favour of the posthumans?

2) In the case of a human child whose human parents have not provided the option of post-human upgrades/extensions/plugins/whatever but who can afford them, could the parents be held liable in court? Are they obliged to provide the option of the upgrade to their children, and if so when is the decision made? What about families who can't afford the upgrades?

On a different note, there are already legal issues over the ownership of information arising at the moment (biopiracy/bioprospecting) and the ethical side is no more clear than the legal side.

Lifting ideas from Iain M Banks & Transmet here....if we ever get Maker-style technology, the capitalist system takes a big knock. (Banks figures it goes completely, but I wouldn't be quite so sure...) Anyway. Once you've got widely available Maker-tech, you have the question of whether there's any ethical obligation to make it available to everyone or whether it can be sold as any other product. It's not a simple question; if you go for the former option, you pretty much force the transition of your capitalist economy to a purely knowledge-based, which then has all sorts of associated issues such as "what obligations does the government have to educate its citizens so that they can adequately provide for themselves?" and "should there be restrictions on what substances you can create using your own Maker?". And probably plenty more that I can't think of.

Reply by Ian 'Cat' Vincent on April 21, 2008 at 10:51pm

You're asking a lot of the right questions Kyle - buggered if I have any answers!

In the examples you give, my cynical-bastard side is sure the only people who'll benefit from the law suits will be the lawyers, until there's sufficient percentage of the population for the point to become big enough for political intervention - and the governments will likely make the worst possible choices, albeit those which allow the businesses investing in such tech to still make dosh.

And as for Makers... I agree that they'll not sound the death knell for market capitalism as we know it for quite a while - and they'll fight it tooth and nail. Expect major lawsuits on Fabbers replicating copyrighted (or even non-copyrighted, if they have an excuse) goods as an opening salvo. This is an area where the Grinder-types and associated geeks, hackers, Creative Commons supporters and other interested parties could put the boot in quite nicely.

In the same way the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they took someone to court for torrenting NIN's Ghosts 1-4 - it's on a CC licence and Reznor posted the torrent personally - they'd have trouble banning fabbed gear that's licensed similarly... and as has been seen in the pharmacology industry, changing one small detail on a copyrighted molecule is reason enough to call a drug 'new'... so fabbed versions of gear that's similar but not identical and is CC-licenced should be defendable legally. Or made so cheap and easily that legislation just can't keep up.

It's that limnal period between the tech being available but not ubiquitous that's the time it gets messy. Gibson said, "the future is here, it's just poorly distributed" - and the resulting lag while the spread of the future widens enough to become common is, as they say, a very long time in politics.

Return to Secret_Tangents.