My wife comes from a part of the World were servants are pretty normal in middle class households. It is actually cheaper to pay someone to clean your dishes than own a dishwasher, so that's what people do. I wouldn't have a problem with having a servant, though there would almost certainly be problems. Apparently Europeans are seen as a big bunch of bleeding heart softies among servants in India, and love to take advantage of it.
My uncle in law has the World's worst gardener but he does't have the heart to fire the guy. As a German living in India, he just can't deal with the insanely low pay rates and rubbish treatment of servants, so will overcompensate in the opposite direction.
Why are you putting servents and slaves in the same basket. They are 2 compleatly different things.
A slave being someone who has been clamed as property who is forced to work and then should be provided with food and acomidation.
A servent is a job. If you have a cleaner then I would say you got a servent. You pay them and then you might help provide for them with food and other benifits.
I would not keep slave but if I had the money and need I might get a servent to help around the house.
Cue everyone decrying 'slavery' while copacetically ignoring human trafficking, sex workers, mandatory community service and prison labor.
'Slavery' is a part of life today as it has been for time in memorial. It's not just 'that thing that happened to black people for a while'. It happens everywhere, all around the world, every day, indiscriminate of demographics. We've certainly come up with prettier names for it though.
At the end of the day it's about treating people as people, and how much you get paid doesn't determine how much of a person you are.
That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!
OT-
I don't like slavery, and I like the idea of genetically engineered slavery even less. People ought to be free to follow their own inclinations and strive towards their own ideals, not those of some other.
Nope. I'm still not yet comfortable with the idea of being responsible for someone else's welfare. Even if all I had to do was let the person clean my room and iron my socks, and... other stuff, it would make me uncomfortable knowing that I had someone depending on me for his or her happiness.
Honestly, my concerns are less about that than the coercion angle. This, at least, is a solvable problem, and one we are actually pretty good at when we listen to what scientists have to say instead of insist our prejudices are valid despite evidence otherwise.
For example, the current system for SRS (and often HRT) are ridiculously over cautious. They are closer to pointless obstruction than due diligence. Again, because people insist on applying a perspective to a situation they cannot understand. With the proven benefit of HRT and SRS along with the strong track record such a strict gatekeeping system is no longer called for and it should be relaxed.
That said, assuming we can be rational about the issue at hand, a strict gate keeping system would certainly be appropriate to start along with studies to gather data on long term happiness and all that. Even if we can't understand the perspective we can collect accurate data that gives us predictive power, telling us how these things turn out. Once we knew better we can find the common signs of someone who is a poor match and the gatekeeping system can be significantly relaxed.
Additionally, the fact is that entering something like a slave contract would not be necessarily permanent. It could be dissolved by the state if it determined that the person is actually unhappy with the arrangement.
And, ultimately, the person is making their own decisions (at least up until the contract is made.) We let people make all sorts of horrible life ruining decisions all the time with no justification more than "well it's their decision." And I think that is right (with the note that it is also right to help them put their life back together if they ask.)
We let people join cults, for heaven sake, as long as the cults are not too abhorrent.
In practical terms I don't think that would be effective enough, but if that could be assured than the biggest problem I have with the whole idea goes away. And really, that is just a matter of technology.
A society's responsibility for determining what is correct behavior for its members, personal rights and freedoms, the pursuit of happiness are all issues that have been debated for many years, and will continue to be debated. Trying to "protect someone from themselves" is a touchy subject in America. Too much and you're a fascist nanny state, too little and you are irresponsible or somehow liable for the peoples' mistakes. I am certain that many of the trans community believe that the limitations/requirements placed on procedures they need to be whole may come across at times as obstructionist. I am just as certain that there are those within the consensual slavery lifestyle that would feel the same of checks put in place to guarantee a safe, sane, and consensual agreement of servitude was entered into.
As well, there should certainly be checks in place to monitor and dissolve the arrangement if necessary. Perhaps an Office of Emancipation that could be used to perform wellness check-ins or assist slaves as needed. The particulars are something that could yet be discussed and fine-tuned.
I honestly have a lot of problems with marriage and how it is currently handled and especially how it used to be handled (despite being married myself.) I've seen serious abuse of marriage to trap and abuse people (not just women). Marriage being in place without strong laws (and correct social attitudes) about divorce was a bad idea. And marriage is still quite problematic.
But it is also a major component of our society. We couldn't remove it or ban it now if we wanted to, and I am not sure we would want to. The best we can do is repair it.
Marriage has less potential for abuse and it was still horribly abused.
The problem is I do not believe we could, as a society, approach it carefully and rationally. We would fuck it up. I mean, can you imagine trying to push the "slavery bill" through congress? Even if you could get the support to make it happen it would be a shit show. No way that gets through in a reasonable form. 95% of the people would be too angry to think about it straight and the rest would be looking to abuse it.
This isn't like equality rights, you can't just say "and now them too." We would have to build up an entire new set of laws and regulations. And I just don't see that happening. At least not directly. But I could see it happening in a round about way.
Marriage is a mess, agreed[footnote]Disclosure: I am engaged.[/footnote]. Yet it is very important to people. Being able to publicly declare your connection and devotion to those you love is very important to most people, sacred to some, and admittedly not respected by others. Just as being able declare this was important to homosexuals, as well as the rights given to them in regards to their spouses, I believe that there are those that would greatly desire that they could do so for their Master/Mistress, and those Masters that wish they could perform their duties and responsibilities required of them without the mountains of paperwork required to try to hodge-podge together some sort of manner of rights, if they are not outright denied.
As far as not fucking it up, that is just a matter to time and laws. This is something that can be worked on and adjusted. Too lax and it(and consensual slaves) are abused, too strict and its a restrictive roadblock to true expression of devotion and happiness with oneself and their partner. I would prefer the too strict approach and adjustments made as information, studies and so forth are gathered. I would believe a situation with a DMV level of red tape would be preferred than one with people being forced into slavery.
I do also agree that its likely a non-starter. Any politician bringing up a "pro-(consensual)slavery" platform would be crucified, maybe literally. Hell, you can trust me when I say that I looked at what I've been writing the last few days and though, "Am I really going on a public forum and debating a pro-slavery position?" I mean, I love playing the Devil's Advocate, but I really can't think of a worse position I've debated for in my life than from the position of pro-slavery.
However, the ability for gays to even be comfortable walking in public [footnote]Which is admittedly, still a work in progress in the US[/footnote]let alone be married, was unthinkable 50-60 years ago. Look where we are today. Maybe the Kink community might see their day in the sun sometime.
I made the point when all this started about advanced artificial intelligences and how we should approach their rights.
A sufficiently advanced AI should have all the rights a person does. In particular, I would argue that an AI should have the right to self determination, even if what they do with that self determination is be a tool, so long as sufficient protections are in place to prevent abuse (I just don't think we are capable of that yet, maybe as society progresses). No creating AI's specifically to the end of them agreeing to be tools, regular checkups to ensure it is getting the respect it deserves, etc.
Basically, we are saying "but it is a person in every meaningful way! If humans get rights, so should this person!" and then it has rights. But because we have different prejudices towards software than towards humans it isn't hard to imagine software wanting to be a tool and it is given the right to become one if it wants to. Then you apply the reverse argument. "This person has this right, why not humans too?"
I find the idea of creating an AI that finds happiness in servitude to be quite the conundrum. I mean, since we would have control of that, would it morally wrong to take advantage of that? Should we be in control of what makes something happy at all? Being the creators, one would assume that we would have to be, and then if we are, do we deny happiness entirely to creations, or are we required to only allow "certain clear and morally right" types of happiness to be programmed? If a robot can be just as happy watching a sunset as it can lifting boxes, is that really wrong?
Well, like I said, I can't make that call. I can make the one about civil unions though seeing as it affected me directly. My problem with the civil union was the blatant "separate but equal" approach. It was ludicrous to purpose that any such union would ever be equal in practicality to marriage, especially because of the place in our culture in which marriage resides. Separate literally cannot be equal in this case.
But I really don't know what these people actually think. It would not surprise me at all if some somewhere existed. I would be interested in their views on the subject. They might very well be satisfied with the current possible arrangement even if they wish it could go further.
Well, as someone with your background might be sympathetic to, people in the Kink community have reasons to not out themselves. Perhaps if they could without possibly compromising their real identities, then we would hear more from them on this topic. We know at least one in this very thread, as kurokotetsu proudly flies the BDSM triskelion and is an admitted slave owner, but likely there are others on these forums.
Personally I almost always will fall on the side of less interference. I've spent a good portion of my life undoing the damage that well meaning people did trying to force me to act "right". I almost didn't make it out of that alive.
Maybe the Kink community might see their day in the sun sometime.
Honestly I hope they do. No community should be forced to hide, and the kink community definitely does have to.
I find the idea of creating an AI that find happiness in servitude to be quite the conundrum. I mean, since we would have control of that, would it morally wrong to take advantage of that? Should we be in control of what makes something happy at all? Being the creators, one would assume that we would have to be, and then if we are, do we deny happiness entirely to creations, or are we required to only allow "certain clear and morally right" types of happiness to be programmed? If a robot can be just as happy watching a sunset as it can lifting boxes, is that really wrong?
I don't know if we would have control of it, at least not at first. Software is complicated. I know enough about computer science and biology together to know that there is very little difference between a mind and a computer on a fundamental hardware level. We are going to end up with advanced AI's (sentient) sooner or later, and I am not convinced we will even recognize it for quite some time. I do not think we will intentionally design the first advanced AI to be such, and it therefore may be completely alien in terms of how it is sentient. I think we can say a few things about what it will look like: It will have been created for a specific job, it will likely have override commands built in, that sort of thing.
And I don't think we can make the assumption that such an AI would desire in the same way humans do. Happiness might be a completely foreign concept to it.
These are incredibly complex questions, ones that I do not have answers for.
Well, as someone with your background might be sympathetic to, people in the Kink community have reasons to not out themselves.
That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!
OT-
I don't like slavery, and I like the idea of genetically engineered slavery even less. People ought to be free to follow their own inclinations and strive towards their own ideals, not those of some other.
That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!
OT-
I don't like slavery, and I like the idea of genetically engineered slavery even less. People ought to be free to follow their own inclinations and strive towards their own ideals, not those of some other.
I'd probably buy one if there was a sufficient understanding to be able to show that's what they really wanted. Be useful - essentially it'd be an awesome robot that just happened to be made out of meat. At the very least, I wouldn't have to do any cooking.
Mind you, I think sentient is being used as a shorthand here for a set of poorly understood emotions and behaviours. I wouldn't want to own something that I considered my equal, or even roughly approximating my equal. I wouldn't want to own people, even people who'd been brainwashed into wanting to serve me, because you know what they're missing out on. People could be so much more than that and would be broken into a form more suited to you.
But anything that had a monomanical urge to serve me to the exclusion of all else, and that was the extent of its potential; where that's what all pleasure and pain is assessed in light of? That doesn't fit my personal definition of sentient. Do what you like to it, it doesn't have a meaningful utility function to take into account.
If you're talking about things with their own desires and goals, separate to my will... well, that's a different matter entirely.
I question how useful an artificial humanoid can be in that regard, without at least some intelligence that you would find problematic. The ability to imagine the emotional and mental states of others for example, which would certainly be a necessity, is closely linked to imagination in general. If you have a thinking, "dreaming", intelligent being, I'm not sure that having limited its urges really amounts to anything right or reasonable. The mixture of lacking intelligence, but having utility might be harder to strike than you seem to think.
There is also the uncomfortable fact that the current trend in AI is not precise programming from the top down, but establishing the basis for a machine to learn from experience. If that continues, it may well be that we are more involved as guides in the development of AI, rather than programmers.
For sake of argument, let's assume that we have the capability to create beings according to arbitrary criteria. Things then appear to me as follow:
I don't feel there is anything objectionable in creating something without any sort of inner world to serve me. Traditional programming or a selection of neural nets running fairly low level operations networked together through more traditional programming. That's just a tool ? the vision neural net is not sentient, nor the speech-NN, and the code in between isn't either.
(It seems unlikely given our limited understanding that we'd be able to make that.)
It seems more objectionable to create something with feelings to serve me, rather than just the outward appearance of those, since I see no purpose in doing so. I would still be okay with it, but only on the condition that there is some proof that's all it wants. If it wants for itself, you've created a person. If that proof could be provided, I do not view it as having limited something - because the potential for it to be more was never part of its design to begin with. It never had the capability to grow in that way.
(It seems unlikely given our limited understanding that we'd be able to prove that.)
And it seems worst of all to create something that dreams of things other than serving me but is compelled nonetheless to do so. Better just not to make them in the first place.
(This seems the most likely if we were to develop complex systems with the outward appearance of intelligence without a reasonable understanding of how they worked.)
---
It's hard to tell how anything would work out, in part because we don't have a sufficient understanding to separate between guiding and programming. If we could clearly define what consciousness, sentience, etc were, then I suspect we'd already have AGI. Well, that or have written it off as a bad idea. We might be able to get some partial solve of the problem and end up in the second situation. But, outside of the hypothetical situation given at the start of the thread, I find the real-world prospects of creating a slave race rather unsatisfactory.
Where I feel we might differ is that I'm not convinced that consciousness, sentience, etc, are a necessity for intelligence. At least, not insofar as intelligence is defined as something roughly analogous to analytical problem solving. There's a sense in which a fire-alarm recognises fire, and in which Bayesian networks stacked on top of a fire alarm system recognise the difference between a false and a real alarm. But they do not have an inner world even if we plug the output of that system into an expert system that decides on the appropriate response.
All our experience of recognising things is a conscious one, but it is not clear to me that consciousness is necessary for recognition.
I've been reading this thread since it started and all I can think the whole time... Every time is that the question was answered perfectly in Star Trek The Next Generation... Twice in the same episode. Measure of a Man. In it the Android, Data was viewed as property of Starfleet even though he was Sapient and sentient. A trial was held to determine his legal status.
If he lost he would be refused his right to resign from Starfleet and have to report to a Science Institute to be dismantled with no assurance that he could be reactivated after the fact. All so that a quasi-military organization could make tens, hundreds, thousands, as many as required of Disposal People. Because if he wasn't sapient and sentient who cared what happened to him.
Most who watched the show remember Picards defense.
Many don't remember Gunian's contrabution to it. Why Picard decided what he did.
Couldn't find a video a transcript will have to do
Guinan: Consider that in the history of many worlds, there have always been disposable creatures. They do the dirty work. They do the work that no one else wants to do because it's too difficult or too hazardous. And an army of Datas, all disposable... You don't have to think about their welfare, you don't think about how they feel. Whole generations of disposable people.
Capt. Picard: You're talking about slavery.
Guinan: Oh, I think that's a little harsh.
Capt. Picard: I don't think that's a little harsh, I think that's the truth. But that's a truth that we have obscured behind a... comfortable, easy euphemism: 'Property'! But that's not the issue at all, is it
So to answer simply no I would not own another Sapient , sentient being no matter how much they wanted to serve because doing so would infringe on their rights as sentient, Sapient beings
Is artificially selecting members of a species with higher oxytocin count and pro-human behaviors the same thing? If our pets or farm animals talked would they be slaves?
Possibly. I am reminded of a part of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The second book the restaurant at the end of the universe. Where Arthur Dent is put face to face with a Sapient cow that wants to be eaten. And his decision is he'd rather have the salad.
When it's revealed that the salad is more Sapient and sentient then the cow he finds himself ordering nothing.
And to answer your earlier question
I have owned a lot of pets over the years. Dogs cats and other. And while they seem to be self-aware I've never considered one of them both Sapient and sentient. Nor have I ever treated as slaves for my amusement. Every pet I've ever had, had their own life and their own choices. The worst thing I've ever done to a pet is told them they could not go outside so they wouldn't be hit by a car.
I do not trust them to no scratch and poope nor do I try to make them act human. Even then I recognize that Captain Sisco, Midinite Loki, Buggy, Tippie, both Homers, Fluffy, Baker, Pretty Boy, Shadow, Motley, Abu Stance, Noisy, Leroy, Squek, Monkey and Goose were not part of my family.
They weren't Sapient but they still mattered to me and my family
Yeah, no. Not in a million years. I could be feed all the crap that they said about how they "love" to serve and it "completes" them and I would still be very disturbed having that much power over anything with that level of sentience.
Well let's make it clear for starters I'm REALLY not fond of having a sentient robot for a servant, too much scifi has drilled me well into the dangers of that... So this wouldn't be my idea, I'd much rather my robot servants be as brainless as possible.
But the problem with sentient robots if we have them, is that you can bet someone at sometime is going to want to "free" those robots, you only have to look at this thread to see some examples. Some people might do it out of a sense of morality (they are slaves! we must free them! Or save them from their mean master!), some might do it for "love" (this was OPs case), some might even do it for nihilism, but point being it's practically inevitable some mofo is going to want to "free the robots".
I do not fathom what the ultimate purpose of such an act would be since it would depend on the person (in the examples given above, it would be to "free" the robots so they could think for themselves without the constraints of their programming binding them, so that they could reciprocate the feeling of love and because humans suck, and for long live our robot overlords reasons respectively), but I greatly fear the results.
The scenarios you describe are probably among the most positive outcomes, I'm all too scared that an AI with 0 constraints on it and without a sense of morality enforced into it would just decide that our species of meatbags is taking up too much inefficient space and resources and should just be replaced..
Because, I would be keen to have several so I can guarantee reproduction and longevity of the servile group.
Looking forward, won't this essentially be robots with rudimentary AI? Is Tony Stark's Jarvis not a slave? What of horses, working dogs, guard geese (yes, a real thing) etc.? Intelligence to the threshold of sentience?
These things always creep me out so much. Every so often you'll come across something that would be pretty bad in real life but it's somehow okay because of reasons and they really want this, you guys. Sort of how any criticism about asari in Mass Effect being just a race of exclusively hot blue chicks is parried with 'but they don't even have the concept of male or female so it's not sexist'.
Yeah, that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to write that reason in. So how does that make it any better. Or Quiet's 'she breathes through her skin' bullshit.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
