I am generally not interested in the current bio ethics debates. Not because I don't have opinions, but because I think so much of the debate these days misses the point, displays enormous failures to understand the technologies involved, and most importantly it often talks about "should" as opposed to "when". So much of what we fight about is inevitable and anyone who is trying to stop advances (like human cloning) as opposed to trying to deal with their consequences doesn't really belong at the grown-ups' table.
This will be a true test of our bio ethics. This is a robot built with a neural network for a CPU. Rat neurons are grown in a matrix, and they learn and adapt with feedback from the robot's senses (as well as some chemical manipulation from the researchers). Clearly this neural network is too small for us to entertain ideas of this robot being a living creature with rights. But it's also now just as clearly on the continuum which includes me, and I think I deserve rights. So we now have created a sort-of living creature, and inevitably we'll end up with creatures sophisticated enough that some of us will consider them alive and some of us will not consider them alive.
I hope I live long enough to participate in that debate.
msd
This will be a true test of our bio ethics. This is a robot built with a neural network for a CPU. Rat neurons are grown in a matrix, and they learn and adapt with feedback from the robot's senses (as well as some chemical manipulation from the researchers). Clearly this neural network is too small for us to entertain ideas of this robot being a living creature with rights. But it's also now just as clearly on the continuum which includes me, and I think I deserve rights. So we now have created a sort-of living creature, and inevitably we'll end up with creatures sophisticated enough that some of us will consider them alive and some of us will not consider them alive.
I hope I live long enough to participate in that debate.
msd
1 comment:
Steve Novella on the SGU pondered what the reaction to this researched would have been if, instead of rat neurons, the researchers had used human neurons. Really, there is little qualitative difference. The reaction and coverage of this research would have been dramatic, I venture, and emphasizes the misguided tone of the current bio ethics debate. As you say, Matt, it is not a question of should, but "when."
I also agree with you that the distinction between what is given rights and what is not will be a very fuzzy line. Even the concept that there is a "line" is erroneous: there is a continuum. As we learn more about the different aspects of the human brain/mind, we will learn how each of these contributes to the making of an individual. Yet how will we determine how much of each trait is necessary before granting rights? If you carry this forward to an extreme, will this mean we all turn into vegetarians? Of course by then we can probably grow steaks in a lab, so we can have the best of both worlds.
Post a Comment