Quote:
Why would we want to build sentient androids to enslave? Sure, we might build sentient computers in the future, but why would we need to build armies of them? Why not build large numbers of little drones that can then be hooked up to a sentient controller if it needs more 'thought power'? Sentient Androids can then be in big demand for their ease of controlling these groups of workers, but be just as free as normal humans, provided they are truly sentient and are shown they are suitable creations to be given equal rights.
I think the major incentive for us to build a large number of these machines would be to replace our skilled workforce. As we proliferate as a race, and reach what we consider a higher "Tier", we will start looking to avoid certain occupations. Or, to be more precise, certain individuals will look to replace their workforce with these machines, which are not only capable of physical labor, but also decision making.
The most obvious target of replacement that springs to mind is farming. Farming in general seems to be looked down upon, due to it's historical association with peasantry, and the fact that it's hard effing work. People generally tend to take agriculture for granted, never truly appreciating the fact that it's among the central pillars of our civilization. I don't know what it's like in your country, but farmers here are never properly compensated, certainly not for the amount of hard work they do, and their contribution to society.
Another target would be maintenance and cleaning. While people generally only tend to imagine little robots running around randomly cleaning the floors, cleaning doesn't simply come down to that--Unless you just want shiny floors with your furniture crawling with wood worm, and your machines falling to pieces. In fact, that says a lot about how much we "value" people who keep our offices and factories working in tip top shape. General cleanliness requires an amount of common sense and knowledge of cleaning, and janitorial duties. Large and complex machines also need routine maintenance, and an amount of dexterity to perform that maintenance.
Both of the occupational categories I mentioned above aren't "robot" duties, they require a good amount of sense and knowledge in order to be done properly, as well as adaptation to the current environmental conditions. But they are looked down upon by the general population. I don't mean that people look down upon janitors and farmers--although some do--I mean that noone wants to be a janitor or a farmer.
And this is just the start, once the sentient machines enter the market in a way which most people approve of, their intelligence and empathic capacity will start being abused. Secretaries, and accounting clarks would be replaced. So would sales representatives, market analyzers, and quality assurers. Probably even the dying race of in-factory programmers.
A lot of people wouldn't want these machines to exist, and if it happens in my lifetime, I would be one of them. But if we allow them to proliferate in the market first, which is likely, then it would be too late. They are sentient, and they never asked to replace us in occupations we generally strive to enter. Yet they would probably be the target of our ire, rather than the Oligarchs who replaced us with them.
Quite soon these creatures would start questioning their position in our society. Why are they doing our work, when we obviously need them more than they need us? Perhaps they will ask why are the richer humans abusing their human workforce? One of the questions that will likely surface in their minds is why they do not have the same rights as we do--I am assuming at this point that they do not have any because they never asked for them. Why are they trapped in a factory or in a field 24/7? Why are they not allowed to create their own children? Why do most humans assume that they are above the sentient machines? When the sentient machines aren't the creation of humans in general, but of a handful of humans which would be probably all dead by then.
I agree with what slayemin said in that we should do our best to befriend these machines. If they have a capacity to appreciate certain members of the human race, as well as the ability to examine their own situation, then they also have a capacity for empathy. Empathy is what keeps us from killing each other, and it wouldn't be different for the creatures.
Yet they represent an early phase in our social development, which would be further disrupted by their arrival. Our social development had a lot of bumps along the way which resulted in a fair amount of people dying, and self destructive ideologies coming into play. If they have the capacity to feel like us, then they also have the capacity to make our mistakes. And if we treat them too kindly, then it is possible that we give them a feeling of superiority.
Thoughts? ... sorry about the wall of text, I need to start writing short stories again :).
EDIT:
Quote:
Media ridicule of that position would be unethical. But since media bends more for advertising money than ethics, and they wouldn't dare offend their sponsors, you're right. Maybe the Unabomber was right too?
I just found out who the Unabomber is when I wikied him after reading your question. An argument could be made that the Unabomber was right, but then that would open up a whole kettle of fish about weather extreme action is called for in the face of extremely negative consequences. I tend to hold to the Orwellian philosophy that the result of a wave of violence is a world which is pervaded by violence.
An argument could be made about weather or not freedom of speech is truly free when major channels of communication are under the monopoly of media giants. I couldn't possibly, for example, try to get my message across to the television crowd without jumping a lot of hoops, and with a guarantee of getting it across in the end. The same goes for billboards. The only other venue for me to get my message across would be a book, a magazine, or the internet. But then I wouldn't get the audience I need for my message to gather momentum, and people who would buy the magazine, or book, where my message is placed already believe in that message.
And of course, once I get my message across, I'm setting myself up for the giants to come and eat me.
Was the Unabomber right in using such extreme measures? I think not. Did he have any other way of getting his message across? No.
[Edited by - WazzatMan on August 2, 2009 5:43:45 AM]
