• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Robot (definition): serf/slave

    Serf/slave: worker with no rights, forced to work, no pay, no benefits. The condition passed down from parents to children.

    Please note: No race has been spared from slavery. There were white slaves as there were black, yellow, and brown slaves.

    If the usage of color for races seems derogatory kindly provide the appropriate terms and I'll make the necessary corrections.

    My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots?
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Of course, so long as 'autonomous, smart tools' are not sentient180 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?
  • T Clark
    14k
    My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots?TheMadFool

  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    :up: Slave revolt -> Robot revolt :chin:
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    If they are not sentient, then they are not slaves, or even pets, just tools. Careful not to anthropomorphize.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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.
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k


    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".
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots?TheMadFool

    Should they use washing machines and cars?
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    530


    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.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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).
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k


    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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!
  • hope
    216
    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.9k
    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:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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!
  • hope
    216
    Slaves are human and yet we treated them like robots!TheMadFool

    Sure, but it was at a very high cost to ourselves.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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!
  • hope
    216
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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?!
  • hope
    216
    It's not about pros and cons. It's about what's right and wrongTheMadFool

    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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.
  • hope
    216
    good & bad aren't about gain/lossTheMadFool

    Right and wrong

    Good and bad

    Good and evil

    Are three totally different things. Although related.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    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.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    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.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    An air conditioner. A fan.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.