Gotta Love the Post-Modernism of Robotics Ethics Laws Based on Asimov

The tradition of SciFi writers predicting the future continues and has now advanced from Jules Verne to Isaac Asimov. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get to some of the things Heinlein predicted.

That said there is something vaguely creepy about an entire national obsession with robots and the need for a nation to actually have a robotic ethics codes. Even the Europeans are getting in on the act. Though it does make practical sense for nations whose populations are imploding. However, it seems premature to establish robotic ethics at all before any of them pass the Turing test.

The most interesting implications of robotics combined w/limited AI are those related to creating sex robots. And all new successful technology from the VCR to the internet has been driven through its applicability to pornography (and making its use more anonymous). If robots are to become commonplace this is the most profitable place for manufacturers/researchers to start. And regardless of what I think, it's only a matter of time before some company starts doing this. Most likely Korea or Japan due to the population pressures mentioned above (which is getting worse due to the aborting of what would be female children in those cultures - we're actually witnessing cultural suicide, from a detached perspective, it would make an excellent PhD thesis).

The positive aspects the spread of sex robots could virtually eliminate trafficking in women and sexual slavery. This has enormous potential to reduce human rights abuses and vastly improve the lives of women around the world since sexual slavery would become comparatively more expensive.

Of course, despite these positive cultural impacts, the christianists likely will rise up in outraged opposition. I'm sure they'll find some obscure Biblical passage to justify opposing another form of sexual release. More likely however, they'll just trot out the chestnut about Onan. Any literate reader of Scripture would realize his punishment was due to "gaming the system" to keep fucking his sister-in-law - which Hebrew law condoned in order to give her a son, but which activity would have to stop once she became pregnant - not for having sex that didn't result in conception (even the Song of Songs praises sexuality) which as become the justification for opposing birth control etc.

Designer Babies in the UK

At the end of the day I completely support this. The individual and social benefits to eliminating genetic diseases such as diabetes, parkinsons, alcholism etc. are enormous.

I'd love to have my future children partially designed to eliminate hereditary diseases. That's a no brainer.

Unintended Social Consequences & Controversies of This Technology

Would I use this technology to enhance their intelligence and athletic ability - of course, what responsible parent wouldn't want their child to have every possible advantage. This is more controversial because thousands(millions?) of individuals making individual decisions for similar reasons can cause an unintential social movement. Such genetic enhancement runs counter to our American ideals of fair play (witness our laws against performance enhancing drugs for athletes).

What about the ethics of deleting a gay gene, deaf gene or genes that make you fat? Parts of our society would do this without blinking. But other parts of our society(beyond the christianists) will have severe issues with this? E.g., won't deaf culture die out and should it (which is a huge issue)?

Depending on how far such technology progresses, it also has has the potential to cement the position of those at the top and eliminatig the eternal goal of meritocracy and social mobility. Without the last two, our Democratic-Capitalist society will eventually collapse due to revolts and possible revolutions - they'll be slow in coming, but they'll come. And it won't just be our nation, it will occur in other nation where the same technology is available and utilized.

Another Defense of Lobbying

The latest issue of The Hill contains a cogent defense of lobbying, and why it is necessary for democracy. It also echoes some of the arguments I make here.