1 / 27

When is Enhancement like a Gun? Limits on Enhancement in a Liberal Democratic Society

James Hughes Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies April 11, 2010 – Manchester UK Beyond the Body? Perspectives on Enhancement. When is Enhancement like a Gun? Limits on Enhancement in a Liberal Democratic Society.

clem
Download Presentation

When is Enhancement like a Gun? Limits on Enhancement in a Liberal Democratic Society

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. James Hughes Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies April 11, 2010 – Manchester UK Beyond the Body? Perspectives on Enhancement When is Enhancement like a Gun? Limits on Enhancement in a Liberal Democratic Society

  2. "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) Enhancement = genocide?

  3. X-Men Senator Kelly:"Are mutants dangerous? We license people to drive."(X-Men) Dr. Grey:"But not to live." Can we distinguish the two?

  4. 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 Fundamental vs. Derivative rights

  5. Setting aside libertarian claims to absolute freedoms… • Liberal social contract permits restrictions on liberty that reduce • Injury to others • Self-injury Rationales for restricting liberty The right to bear arms

  6. 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 Disputed risks

  7. 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 Dualistic biopolitics

  8. 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 Dual use Dilemmas

  9. Mandatory: literacy Universal access and subsidized: health Laissez-faire: electronics Licensure: driving, flying, guns, opiates Only state personnel: automatic weapons Banned: WMDs Regulatory options for TECH

  10. 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 Cars and Cell phones

  11. Regulations • By age • By training and licensure • By occupation • By proof of legitimate use • By location Dynamite and fertilizer

  12. Which enhancements pose risks?

  13. 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 predictability

  14. Unkillable people would be more dangerous. Regulate superlongevity/healing? HealthY longevity vs. immortality

  15. 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 Cognitive enhancement

  16. Politicians, journalists, religious leaders? Super persuasiveness

  17. Supersight Superhearing Echolocation X-ray vision Same rules as govern eavesdropping, spying, voyeurism Super senses

  18. An issue in athletics, but not for society speed Although it would facilitate crime

  19. No regulations now on physical strength or licensure of martial arts “excessive force” in self-defense Super strength or lethality

  20. Same rules as civil aviation and parachuting? Flight

  21. invisibility

  22. We don’t currently regulate acting or makeup But we do “identity theft” Super mimicry

  23. 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 The case of Machine minds

  24. Drug and device safety approval procedures Licensure processes to demonstrate maturity, control and responsible use of dangerous enhancements Laws to punish criminal use Enhancement is not novel

  25. Right to health, longevity, bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty are presumably fundamental Rights to drive, own guns, fly, superstrength are presumably derivative Fundamental vs. Derivative rights

  26. 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 Regulating enhancement

  27. James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies director@ieet.org http://ieet.org

More Related