Slavery of humanoid

[Yunru]

I'd still go with the robots. The only way something like "Cybernet" happening and robots take over is one little error in the programming that caused the robot to do whatever it did to cause said robot revolution, thus still being a human-caused problem. Bugs happen. Putting a brain into a machine though, well, that's just asking for trouble. Robots are safer than man-machines imo.

If something goes wrong its easier to kill a being of flesh than the one made out of metal. And robots can repair themself for as much as they want and live immoral life. Humanids with limited life cant. Also robots can build new robots, humanoids cant (unles they capture the machine that makes them).

[ophion1990]

If they can engineer humanoids to be scared of humans... can't they make the robots be just as scared of humans? If people are scared of a "too intelligent robot", I'm pretty sure they'd be scared of those humanoids aswell?
I think it'd be too cruel to make living things work themselves to death, and I'm sure there'll be tons of protests from religious people and activists and stuff.

[Kuthe]

NO.
nonono.
Horrible thing.

That's just slavery. After all, back when African-Americans (first to come to my head) and many other races were brought and used for slavery, they were seen as a weaker species. It's the same thing.

I can't even fathom how people could even press yes on the poll...

[Clockwork Pinkie]

If something goes wrong its easier to kill a being of flesh than the one made out of metal. And robots can repair themself for as much as they want and live immoral life. Humanids with limited life cant. Also robots can build new robots, humanoids cant (unles they capture the machine that makes them).

Robots can't do anything unless there's lines of codes that offer them an "if", to do so. A robot is not going to get the freewill of "humans are bad, destroy all humans" if there's not anything to suggest. A humanoid with a brain that can develop freewill, would. Robots will also be better at the job, which is what a company wants, they don't need a break, nor pay. These humanoids with limited life would need that.

[Deleted]

I actually find it somewhat surprising that so many people are against this.

The fact is that at the end of the day this is pretty much exactly how we treat most animal species. Horses and dogs are used for carrying and hunting, and we farm countless species purely for food. Literally the ONLY difference is the fact that this animal has human features.

If that is the definitive characteristic and the line between symbiosis and slavery then you are extremely hypocritical. It suggests to me that if cows looked anything like humans you would be against using them the way we do.

@OP: interesting thread.

[Kurioxan]

I actually find it somewhat surprising that so many people are against this.

The fact is that at the end of the day this is pretty much exactly how we treat most animal species. Horses and dogs are used for carrying and hunting, and we farm countless species purely for food. Literally the ONLY difference is the fact that this animal has human features.

If that is the definitive characteristic and the line between symbiosis and slavery then you are extremely hypocritical. It suggests to me that if cows looked anything like humans you would be against using them the way we do.

@OP: interesting thread.

I find most people who oppose it also oppose beasts of burden in general

[Deleted]

I find most people who oppose it also oppose beasts of burden in general

That's fine then; but I have trouble believing that applies to the entire 62% of people who voted 'oppose'.

[Yunru]

I actually find it somewhat surprising that so many people are against this.

The fact is that at the end of the day this is pretty much exactly how we treat most animal species. Horses and dogs are used for carrying and hunting, and we farm countless species purely for food. Literally the ONLY difference is the fact that this animal has human features.

If that is the definitive characteristic and the line between symbiosis and slavery then you are extremely hypocritical. It suggests to me that if cows looked anything like humans you would be against using them the way we do.

@OP: interesting thread.

Even bears?

[Deleted]

No, it isn't right a dog, being taught to amuse us as human beings even thought it is self away and is alive, is a different argument.

But since you bring it up, I think of dogs as partners and companions for which we created, whether i agree with that practice of humans not withstanding. The question is about Slavery, going forward, as in is this a practice that would be ok going forward, meaning day 1, and the answer should be NO, absolutely not!


Companions or pets or animals of different kinds, could be bartered with or negotiated with, much different than say taking a wild elephant, shooting it up with drugs, and forcing it to perform in a circus = Slavery.

Slavery in any way is wrong.

Again I feel your reacting too strong to a single word and not the concept as a whole. This is an interesting issue which cannot be answered with absolute yes or no because it's very childish or ignorant to do so.

I raised the point of comparing the animal to a dog.

Every single domesticated dog in existence is a product of selective breeding, human intervention has had a massive effect on the evolutionary process and it's at the point where you can very effectively argue that certain breeds of dogs are breed for certain purposes and these purposes are always to the benefit of humans.

Ignoring the pet and companion angle entirely for the moment and just looking at the working side; such police sniffer dogs and guide dogs. It's very easy to see that these dogs have been breed for these purposes and that these working animals owe their existence because they can perform these functions.

Their biology has been shaped by man, their natures have been altered.

Pets are almost universally breed to be loyal, protective, playful, even-tempered and obedient. Breeds that stray away from these qualities tend to be placed on the dangerous or banned breeds list. It's all for the benefit of humans, the greatest evolutionary advantage dogs have had is being useful to humans.

So using this as an example and that you could argue that dogs are already "enslaved" and perform a function to humans.

And then if we can avoid the knee jerk reaction to the word "slavery" like a child reaction to getting a needle in the arm. (Oh it's pain, it's definitely bad, I can't see the big picture).

Then maybe we could start to compare the two. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But then maybe it still would be because it could displace employment. Maybe it would be because it would undermine certain jobs. Maybe it would be because it would place a greater strain on the worlds resources (population by 2080?) and so on.

Rather than just a "No it's wrong. End of".

[Myndtaker]

I oppose on the grounds i don't like the idea of subjugating other creatures to our way of life. Our way of doing things shouldn't involve other beings, sentient or otherwise, although mankind has done so for thousands of years by domesticating animals i don't think it was a good choice for the theoretical future. In an advanced timeline such as the one in this scenario, there should be enough technology to have other ways of getting these tasks done whether it be by man, keeping people in the job and what not, or via machine. To create a being for the purpose of being a tool you might as well just make a tool which can be maintained a lot easier and more "User Friendly".

But i guess in the end i would be more asking myself the question of "Planet of the Apes" or "Terminator".

[Deleted]

Do humans with severe mental handicaps have consciousness? If a human were to grow up in the wild completely devoid of human contact, would it have consciousness?

Sure they have. Did you ever meet a human that was uncouscious of himself? And which was not in coma?

Dogs are aware of self and of others. They can plan, they can learn, they can solve rudimentary puzzles. They even develop very basic systems of language (that involves more than noise).

And here you are wrong. They act psychoid. Means, they act as if they got a soul like behaviour while every behaviour just is based on instinct.

Did you ever see what happens if a cat or dog master dies because of a heart attack and / or a stroke?

They eat up their master. Happened a lot. So much about psychoid acting and instinct.

[Dendrek]

And here you are wrong. They act psychoid. Means, they act as if they got a soul like behaviour while every behaviour just is based on instinct.

Did you ever see what happens if a cat or dog master dies because of a heart attack and / or a stroke?

They eat up their master. Happened a lot. So much about psychoid acting and instinct.

The ability to solve puzzles is instinct? The ability to communicate doesn't count as thought? Do you have a strict definition of what makes something conscious vs unconscious? This sounds a lot like the "animals don't have souls" argument people like to use (you even seem to reference it -- so perhaps you're really only rephrasing it).

[lokinrond713]

No, slavery is a crap economic system and failed horribly oh and because ya know, slavery. Though im sure teh south would love another bunch of slaves and long reaching economic consequences once everyone else has had enough of their crap. Cuse i just love gang and drug wars and violent crimes and lotsa racism.

We really need to bring in another grp, make their lives miserable and treat them like crap, force them to work for us and then say were sorry and kick em out the door again, more social problems!


ORRR we could kill them all, that always works.....RIGHT?

[Laraven]

OP, what drugs are you currently using?

[Deleted]

The ability to solve puzzles is instinct? The ability to communicate doesn't count as thought? Do you have a strict definition of what makes something conscious vs unconscious? This sounds a lot like the "animals don't have souls" argument people like to use (you even seem to reference it -- so perhaps you're really only rephrasing it).

I am talking about self consciousness, about the ability to ask philosophical questions. Where do i come from? Where do i go to? What is the reason to live? No animal will ever ask those questions.

If the ability to solve puzzles is conscious behaviour? No, as a puzzle could be solved by any kind of computer program.
If the ability to communicate does count as tought? Surely it does, still you can communicate with a computer and tell him what he should do (by programming), but the computer will never ask, why he would have to do it. He never would question his existence. And thats the difference.

[Deleted]

You lost me at genderless. No sex slaves, no deal.
Oooohhh! Make colored humanoid ponies! Please?

[Dendrek]

I am talking about self consciousness, about the ability to ask philosophical questions. Where do i come from? Where do i go to? What is the reason to live? No animal will ever ask those questions.

If the ability to solve puzzles is conscious behaviour? No, as a puzzle could be solved by any kind of computer program.
If the ability to communicate does count as tought? Surely it does, still you can communicate with a computer and tell him what he should do (by programming), but the computer will never ask, why he would have to do it. He never would question his existence. And thats the difference.

A human born in the wild cannot ask those questions either. He would literally have no access to any kind of language with which to formulate complex thoughts.

And I find your definition of consciousness suspect: it's a very anthropocentric definition. Philosophy is a complex and advanced form of human thought processes. And I doubt it's even inherently obvious to humans to question why they exist (modern humans likely only do this because they are taught to). I think the requirement to be conscious is to be aware of one's self. But this is a difficult thing to measure, and is essentially impossible to measure in animals.

[Edit] The mirror test is one way to test for self-awareness -- a test that several types of animals have passed. But even this isn't a comprehensive way to check for self-awareness. Dogs and cats don't pass this test, but dogs and cats also don't rely on vision as their primary sense. As far as I know, no test exists that isn't anthropocentric. And that's likely because, even after the centuries we've spent studying sentience, we still don't even have a strong understanding of what it is.

[Yunru]

You lost me at genderless. No sex slaves, no deal.
Oooohhh! Make colored humanoid ponies! Please?

I dont think you could make them colored like in cartoon. Its due to a pigmet in a skin. Unles you cross their dna with octupus wich changes colors to adapt. But even then you need to place them near some pink looking wall to make it work.
Black,white,brown horses are kinda everywhere.
http://gingingray.wantlesspower.com/Horseys.png