From: den Otter (neosapient@geocities.com)
Date: Wed Feb 24 1999 - 07:29:44 MST
----------
> From: hal@rain.org
> Billy Brown, <bbrown@conemsco.com>, writes:
> > Suppose my parents are religious, and they feel that anyone who is not a
> > member of their faith will suffer eternal damnation. Consequently, at an
> > early age they have be fitted with neural implants that will ensure I
> > fervently believe in their faith, that I will never violate its tenets, and
> > that I am incapable of ever changing this belief system.
>
> A very interesting question, independent of the posthuman question. What
> degree of control is moral for parents to exert over their children? More
> generally, what is moral when creating a new intelligence?
[snip]
> Generalizing the case Billy describes, if the universe is a dangerous
> place and there are contagious memes which would lead to destruction, you
> might be able to justify building in immunity to such memes. This limits
> the person's flexibility, but it is a limitation intended ultimately to
> increase his options by keeping him safe.
>
> How different is this from the religious person who wants to keep
> his own child safe, and secure for him the blessings of eternal life?
> Not at all different. Although we may not agree with his premises,
> given his belief system I think his actions can be seen as moral.
Maybe, but making someone a religious nut is ultimately always bad
for himself and society, so rational people would have every moral
right to (try to) remove the religious programming from the child's
mind and replace it with memes for critical thinking. Personally,
I'd have no problem with outlawing the indoctrination of children
with anything else than rationalism and critical thought. Given
the damage that religion and related dogmas have done to
individuals (life-long mental scars, insanity, false guilt etc.)
and society (oppression, stagnation, holy wars, mass hysteria
etc.) I think this in itself somewhat coercive measure could
be fully justified. Ultimately it would improve everyone's situation,
after all.
However, this certainly doesn't mean that *all* future intelligences
should be maximed for critical thinking, only those that are
intended to become "peers". Lower "servant" AIs should be
made so that they either are completely emotionless like your
PC for example (preferable), or programmed to be unconditionally
happy with what they do. As long as they don't suffer, this would
certainly be "moral".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:07 MST