>From sander@haldjas.folklore.eeFri Mar 22 16:47:01 1996
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:25:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To: Future Culture <FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: (2) FC, community, etc...again. (fwd)
I'm real sorry this comes to the list only now (and the culprite am I,
with no good excuses). But here it comes...
Sander.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 23:11:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To: Greg Ritter <gritter@felix.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: (2) FC, community, etc...again.
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Greg Ritter wrote:
>
> Re: cyberbabies
>
> Sander then me then Sander again:
>
> > > > So it mostly boils down to some technical questions - given
> the
> > > present
> > > > day VR capabilities, the up-bringing can be organised.
> > >
> > > Technical questions? The technology is the easy part. It's
> the
> > > *ethical* questions that are more important, IMO.
> > >
> >
> > It boils down to some (and solvable) technical questions for
> those who
> > want to implement something like what I outlined. I doubt they
> will have
> > ethical problems (and they will have their advocates think out
> good
> > solutions to those should it come to the court).
>
> It's one thing if you're talking about adults being voluntarily
> "wired," but I think there are *severe* ethical problems with
> implementing something like eye implants and brain jacks for
> infants. (Remember, we're talking about 'cyber*babies*'.)
Did that what I said give you the feeling I thought it was OK? No, I do
understand the problems with "using" other people for some reasons. No
matter what these uses are (that is doing something they don't want to
themselves). Yes, even forcing people to work to earn their daily food/
accomodation/ whatever.
What I said (because I think it is so) is that anyone who will carry
through the thing won't have ethical problems to deal with. Partly it
comes from the fact that I don't believe in humans (yes, I'm one and so
it goes also about myself) and in their quality in ethics. So there will
be only techical problems to deal with.
I'm real sorry if this is shocking to you, but there is a thing (at least
in the case of the humans) as the shared ethical load. Some people just
design some patrs of the system and do no *direct* harm by doing so.
(Actually, they can claim they harmed no-one). Other people just do the
implanting (and might also be doing nothing bad - they might even be
giving vision and hearing to a child who might otherwise be both blind
and deaf), and yet other people take part in the upbringing of the poor
creature (aren't there so much people aginst euthanasia? So there's
nothing wrong with keeping alive a human who was gived a life), and
surely nothing wrong with teaching the basic ways to survive, how to read
and speak (in this case in cyberspace).
That leaves zero problems for those who do it - the problems are only for
us. I know the talk above is cynical - but such we are. People tend not
to think about the long run results of their deeds.
> Children should not be property that we get to physically
> 'upgrade' to meet our desires.
>
Certainly - as said above, I'm not saing "come on, lets make a bunch of
cyberbabies". Humans should be free to the highest extent possible - no
one to slave somebody else, no one to say that boys/girls should not do
this or that, no one to tell anybody doing x is bad and should not be
counted for. To me creating such cyberbabies is equvalent to changing
these people to slaves. But is there so much fuss about slavery or people
not being free (even not remotely). Haven't heard much. Everything is
considered from the viewpoint of the "economical and political realities".
> Advocates and courts may work out solutions to the *legal*
> problems of doing that--legal solutions do not necessarily equate
> to ethical solutions, though.
I'm not too sure whetever or not present laws would view it as a too big
crime - I have a real bad feeling it could be set up so that it all would
conform to the laws for the most part, meaning that all the fight in the
courts will be on the ethical grounds, the advocates proving thetever it
was or wasn't wrong what was done (thst's why I said the advocates will
have to think out solutions to the ethical problems).
>
> --
> Greg Ritter
> gritter@felix.vcu.edu
> ritter@urvax.urich.edu
> http://www.urich.edu/~ritter
>
Sander