A dog can learn tricks, feel pain, will shy away from experiences that have caused it pain in the past. How is that not sentience?
Chimps can recognize their reflection in the mirror, that shows a degree of self-awareness nearly unique in animals.
No, we don’t all agree at all.
color me in the not everybody agrees seats
would it be different if we took chimps and engineered them up to this level?
would it be different to expose abandoned/removed infants to enough alcohol to damage them down to this level?
show your work.
Yes, I was wondering about this too. How is building a designed willing slave from DNA and flesh and bones different from building a designed willing slave from gears and hydraulics and circuitry?
You’ll regret these words when Doctor Doom brings his army of genetically-engineered supersoldiers across the northern border!
I think it boils down to one thing only: does the being want to serve?
If yes, no problem. If no, there’s a problem.
Thus, editing the brain of a freely-existing being to make it want to serve is wrong, because changed beings can’t give retroactive consent.
(Although I’m now wondering about ‘deprogramming’ of cult members. Isn’t this the same thing? But then cults operate fraudulently, not advertising that they will cut their members off from their previous social lives. So members aren’t agreeing to what they get.)
We are not talking about chimeras which by definition are comprised of two or more genetically distinct cell populations
Chimera is also defined as any animal created with DNA from two different species.
You need to be careful here. Hybrids like mules with DNA from a horse and a donkey are not classified as chimeras because they still have a singular genome.
I, personally, wouldn’t give a rodent’s behind if the homunculus likes to be a slave. I don’t want to be a slave owner, I don’t want to give orders to a slave. That, IMO would degrade me as a human being, and again IMHO it would degrade human society.
well said
That’s something we may have to grapple with someday. I’d love a Roomba that was sophisticated enough to do the cooking and cleaning and weeding in the garden.
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Bladerunner. “They’re my friends; I made them.” That always creeped me out.
Are pets slaves?
That is a very good point.
However, does owning a pet or domestic animal provide the same degradation? Or is the degradation caused by forcing an unwilling being to the task?
If this technology can be used to create a creature with the body of a supermodel and the mind of a dog, ethical objections are largely irrelevant, irrelevant, you hear me?!
What do you mean create? Have you ever seen Project Runway?
I may be wrong but I believe that more steers than cows get eaten; you need your cows and a few bulls to create more bull calves that are then castrated, fattened, and slaughtered. That’s not to say that some cows aren’t killed and eaten. So what you really need is to create cows that actually want their children to be eaten and are capable of saying so, clearly and distinctly. I would think you also need to have the consent of the father bulls as well.
In the case of dairy cattle, you would need to breed cows and bulls who would be able to give their consent to having their children taken away and the milk the cows produce to feed their children subverted to other uses.
It can get very complicated very quickly in my view; I think it would be better to simply continue to treat bulls, cows, and calves the way we always have instead of breeding them to talk.
There was a thread awhile back about vat-grown meat. I think the better solution is to grow a slab of meat with no brain at all.
Interesting question, especially Lemur866’s objection about programming a once-free to love slavery. It reminds me of experience box (e.g. “Matrix”) thought experiments, and whether anything we did in them could be moral or immoral.
Anything that can speak and act for itself should be listened to, and “speak” is meant in the broadest possible way (e.g., my cat speaks). If I were engineered to be happy being a slave, the problem is not with my future happiness, but with my current perspective on that future happiness. Like the experience machine, I have a weird pull that it wouldn’t be real happiness. But the armchair philosopher in me is always very suspicious when intensifiers, especially disputable intensifiers like “real”, enter a discussion. I have to ask myself: how would I know that this is not happiness? (Let’s drop the intensifiers.) Why should my current free status have bearing on a future version of myself? Under normal circumstances it is because we would recognize a continuous identity between current and future self. But in the case under discussion there is a discontinuity. I would submit that while Lemur866’s hypothetical modification itself would be immoral, so would reversing it, had it already been done: after the discontinuous break, the slave would not consent to alteration back to freedom, as the slave would be happy, and I see no reason to suppose this happiness is somehow unworthy of consideration.
Does this apply in the creation of the slave class? Is the creation immoral, but once done, undoable? But in the previous example, the imposition of discontinuity over identity was what was immoral. Whole-cloth creation does not “break” the identity function, so to speak.
Just some thoughts I’ve had. Cool discussion.
Beagles are not. They generally get their way by using cuteness and stubborness.
If it is possible to make a subhuman,or to clone one, it will be done. Somebody ,somewhere will do it. Will they learn something important in the act? Will they invent a new technology with medical ramifications? Will a huge industry rise from the process? Who knows ,but I prefer to have us at the front of medical exploration and not twiddling our thumbs to the beat of a psalm.
So, here’s how we get around it. We don’t use any human DNA. We start with chimps (or gorillas) and then tweak their DNA so that they are a little smarter, a lot more passive, not quite as strong (just in case), and just love nothing more than seeing humans happy. We make sure they are unable to breed naturally, so they can’t escape and establish natural colonies anywhere.
Pretty expensive, but if we can get the costs down, we avoid the ethical problems of creating a new species in our genus.
At some point, with enough tweaking, even with chimpanzee DNA, you approach a grey area where he result could be considered more human than not. Problematic.
<Jeff Goldblum>Life finds a way</jg>
I don’t believe the goal should be to create a new species, unless that species was in some way an evolutionary step forward for humanity, not backward. Any experimentation that results in the development of species closely-related, but evolutionarily inferior, to us, should remain just that, experimental, in extremely finite quantities, the purpose for which is educational fodder to allow us to get to the next step, and definitely not to be used as slave labor.