Of course, so long as 'autonomous, smart tools' are not sentient. Surplus (economically unproductive) billions of people, however, are ethically and politically problematic, as is the technocratic prospect of how to humanely "thin the herds" in order to make humanity compatible with robo-automated global civilization.

Of course, so long as 'autonomous, smart tools' are not sentient — 180 Proof

I was just wondering if we might see a little bit of our painful history as slaves in the way we treat (mistreat?) robots and if that might make us at the very least think twice about using robots. We are, after all, going to do to them the exact same thing we did to each other back in the heydays of slavery. :grimace: No?

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

:up: Slave revolt -> Robot revolt :chin:

If they are not sentient, then they are not slaves, or even pets, just tools. Careful not to anthropomorphize.

If they are not sentient, then they are not slaves, or even pets, just tools. Careful not to anthropomorphize. — 180 Proof

Sentience seems to be key in re your position but if I may say so, I maybe completely wrong of course, the problem with slavery wasn't a deficiency/absence of sentience in slaves but actually in their masters.

Using a hammer appropriately does not reflect on the user's sentience (or lack thereof). Using another person in any way, however, does. I fail to see your point, Fool.

Why not start the question with enslavement of humans (or animals) instead of robots. We treat classes of humans like shit which are much more likely to be sentient than whatever constitutes a "robot".

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

Should they use washing machines and cars?

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

We already do. It won't be bad for the robots, unless they develop the ability to suffer.

Bearing in mind we enslave animals for our taste pleasure, it would not be unreasonable to assume we would enslave sentient robots for our pleasure too.

Bearing in mind we enslave animals for our taste pleasure, it would not be unreasonable to assume we would enslave sentient robots for our pleasure too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

:up:

Using a hammer appropriately does not reflect on the user's sentience (or lack thereof). Using another person in any way, however, does. I fail to see your point, Fool. — 180 Proof

What I want to bring to your attention is a rather simple fact. Slavemasters were treating human slaves back when slavery was the norm the same as we intend to treat robots in the future. The sentience of human slaves was completely ignored i.e. human slaves were treated as if they weren't sentient. In other words human slaves were equivalent to robots for all intents and purposes.

Thus, I was just curious about how all of us - white, yellow, black, and brown - having a family history of slavery would feel about using robots because there's no difference between slaves and robots. The fact that slaves were/are sentient human beings is irrelevant because they were treated as if they weren't. That's the whole point of slavery and robotics - in the latter case, sentience is absent and in the former case, sentience is deemed absent.

Why not start the question with enslavement of humans (or animals) instead of robots. We treat classes of humans like shit which are much more likely to be sentient than whatever constitutes a "robot". — Nils Loc

Read my reply to 180 Proof above.

We already do. It won't be bad for the robots, unless they develop the ability to suffer.

Bearing in mind we enslave animals for our taste pleasure, it would not be unreasonable to assume we would enslave sentient robots for our pleasure too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Indeed the "ability" ( :chin: disability?) to suffer is key to the ethics of slavery but my point is those involved in the slave trade closed their eyes to the suffering of the slaves which boils down to treating slaves as robots.

A non-sentient robot is a tool. A sentient slave used like a non-sentient robot is not a tool but is, in effect, a torture victim, a slave. The latter is dehumanizing. So they are not comparable (i.e. category error); sentience, acknowledged or not, makes all the difference.

A non-sentient robot is a tool. A sentient slave used like a non-sentient robot is not a tool but is, in effect, a torture victim, a slave. The latter is dehumanizing. So they are not comparable (i.e. category error); sentience, acknowledged or not, makes all the difference. — 180 Proof

All I'm saying is that when slavery was all the rage, if someone had invented reasonably functional robots, slaves would've had the same rights as robots i.e. no rights at all!

Thus, if I were an emancipated slave, I would see my past (slavery) in a robot and would, for that reason, feel uncomfortable around robots to say nothing of using them.

Say all you like, you've created a muddle of apparent paradoxes for yourself again, Fool, this time based on a category error (and some historical anachronisms to boot).

Do folks born with the inability to feel pain suffer as much psychologically as normal folks? I wonder how much the "ouchie" kind of pain shapes the ability/capacity to feel embarrassed or guilt or are such pathways to suffering more functionally independent in the human person, related to an absence of desire. Are the "pains" of hunger completely unconditioned/unrelated to "ouchie" pain.

Assuming a person was indestructible, more like robot built to be super tough, and could not feel pain, like a toaster, they would not suffer at all compared to a normal person.

Maybe we as humans are to be the nociceptors and sex organs of the machine world.

Say all you like, you've created a muddle of apparent paradoxes for yourself again, Fool, this time based on a category error (and some historical anachronisms to boot). — 180 Proof

:ok: I won't pursue the matter further.

Maybe we as humans are to be the nociceptors and sex organs of the machine world. — Nils Loc

Interesting!

Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

If robots become too human then we will be forced to treat them morally for our own sakes.

Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

Of course, we will do so. It will depend in our incomes and the purpose of use that robot. But, who knows? Probably these robots will have some rights in the future. I guess we cannot hire them with an agreement or according to civil law :chin:

If robots become too human then we will be forced to treat them morally for our own sakes. — hope

Slaves are human and yet we treated them like robots!

Slaves are human and yet we treated them like robots! — TheMadFool

Sure, but it was at a very high cost to ourselves.

Sure, but it was at a very high cost to ourselves. — hope

Yes, losing our "humanity" is what some would call it and that too for a "few" bucks! The slavemasters' luxurious and comfortable lives were tainted with the blood, sweat, and toil of slaves. They didn't realize that. Hopefully it wasn't that they didn't give jack shit!

Yes, losing our "humanity" — TheMadFool

Well there is benefits and drawbacks to cooperation and competition.

Society now considerers slavery to have more drawbacks then benefits.

Well there is benefits and drawbacks to cooperation and competition.

Society now considerers slavery to have more drawbacks then benefits. — hope

I wouldn't view slavery that way. It's not about pros and cons. It's about what's right and wrong, good and bad. What's good is good no matter how many or how severe the drawbacks. Bad is bad no matter how many or how great the advantages. Perhaps this is the dreamer in me speaking because I've noticed that as of late, being bad is a huge drawaback - people immediately and viciously call one out on it. On the flip side, being good gets you all the best deals there are. Mind you, this is what it looks like. Smoke and mirrors?!

It's not about pros and cons. It's about what's right and wrong — TheMadFool

Evil has benefits in the short term. Drawbacks in the long term.

Take more spacetime into account and being good has more benefits most of the time.

Taking more spacetime into account requires more intelligence and experience.

But why do we need benefits? Because we are needy.

Evil has benefits in the short term. Drawbacks in the long term. — hope

Fascinating! Well put. However, this may not necessarily be true. It's possible that evil has far-reaching positive effects. That however is not a reason to be bad. I think those who resort to evil based on the maxim ends justifying the means lack imagination!

Nevertheless, good & bad aren't about gain/loss and if you insist they are then you'll have to concede the value inversion that takes place: loss is good & gain is bad. Of course I'm talking of personal gain and loss. As soon as an other is involved, gain is good & loss is bad, the world is right-side-up again.

I'm hqving trouble equating good with benefit and bad with drawback. It's as if we're monetizing morality and while I don't see an actual issue with it, my gut instinct is to resist such an interpretation. Maybe it's just word play in the end.

Take more spacetime into account and being good has more benefits most of the time. — hope

Again, let's not reduce morality to economics.

Taking more spacetime into account requires more intelligence and experience. — hope

Spacetime? Indeed, it's all about space and time, both are scarce resources. Robots can save a lot of time and will also be able to take out more from a given space than a human can. As for slaves, they were merely substitutes - replacing a freeman with a slave meant that the former had time to do other things and also could own vast tracts of land (space).

But why do we need benefits? Because we are needy. — hope

See above.

good & bad aren't about gain/loss — TheMadFool

Right and wrong

Good and bad

Good and evil

Are three totally different things. Although related.

Right and wrong

Good and bad

Good and evil

Are three totally different things. Although related. — hope

Expand and elaborate...please.

Update

Imagine if I tell you that I have an entity X and I make X work from daybreak to nightfall in my house, I bought X from the market, I don't pay X for the work X does, and if X is unable to do the work assigned to X, I simply abandon X and go to the market and find a replacement. With the information I've provided, only the clues given, can you tell whether X is a slave or a robot? :chin: There's something robotish about slaves and, conversely, there's something slavish about robots.

I can tell you are a tool-user and X is a tool. The only question is whether X is natural born or not; and that will tell something more about you.

An air conditioner. A fan.