Species Survival Imperative: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Species Survival Imperative » Species Survival Imperative

Species Survival Imperative
How much ethical weight should be granted to the survival of the species?

Species Survival Imperative

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/02/09 - 12:39 PM: Subject: Species Survival Imperative	#1
The interaction between human and non-human intelligences has been the subject of fiction for centuries, if not millenia. As artificial intelligence and genetic engineering become more commonplace, the potential for the development of human genetic offshoots and Artificial Intelligences is very much a topic of interest to futurists, philosophers, scientists and commentators. Faced with the new challenges posed by these developments, what standards should govern human conduct towards other sentient, non-human beings (I concede, of course, that the definition of non-human will vary somewhat, but for our purposes I think it is sufficient to consider genetically engineered human offshoots who are no longer capable of reproducing with "base-line" humans)? What measures, if any, are justified to preserve the human species in the face of competition with other sentient life forms? Is there a collective survival instinct at play in the human species or is there otherwise some sort of moral weight to the existence of the human species that would justify taking steps to ensure its survival in the face of competition with other moral agents?

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 860

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:12 PM:	#2
It's interesting that you pose a hypothetical sentient creature because the response will require analogoizing to actual creatures. For example, are my obligations to my species, my race, my nation, my community, my extended family, my immediate family, or even to those who share my ideologies greater than my obligations to the universal community at large. I would suggest that I do owe a greater duty to those closer to me, and I don't believe it is antiquated thinking to suggest that I have no greater duty to my child than I do my neighbor. So, by analogy, I would make less room for an invading species than I would a child born into my community.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4126

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:48 PM:	#3
You don't need to speculate as much as you might think. We are already faced with alien intelligences such as elephants, chimps, and dolphins that are competing with us for survival. Similarly, the history of humanity is repleate with examples of how people treated other people whom they considered inferior and superior. However, I feel compelled to point out that this is the sociology message board, not the ethics board.

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:13 PM:	#4
wuliheron wrote: You don't need to speculate as much as you might think. We are already faced with alien intelligences such as elephants, chimps, and dolphins that are competing with us for survival. Similarly, the history of humanity is repleate with examples of how people treated other people whom they considered inferior and superior. However, I feel compelled to point out that this is the sociology message board, not the ethics board. The species you mention, however, lack the capacities that allow them to compete with us on anything resembling a level playing field, let alone actually threaten the ability of our species to survive and/or thrive. The interesting thing about the hypothetical entities I mention is that they would likely have capacities that allowed them to compete with base-line humans, if not surpass them altogether. (c.f Nick Bostrom's Trascendent Upload Scenario here: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) While my question does have ethical implications, I take it to be primarily a concern of social philosophy (or, if you prefer, social science) because it deals with the particular roots and philosophical implications of what would be a collective (that is to say, social) reaction to pressure upon a group (ie the species). If the mods disagree with this evaluation, I trust that they will not hesitate to relocate this thread to a more appropriate venue.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4126

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:09 PM:	#5
thewatcher wrote: The species you mention, however, lack the capacities that allow them to compete with us on anything resembling a level playing field, let alone actually threaten the ability of our species to survive and/or thrive. The interesting thing about the hypothetical entities I mention is that they would likely have capacities that allowed them to compete with base-line humans, if not surpass them altogether. (c.f Nick Bostrom's Trascendent Upload Scenario here: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html) While my question does have ethical implications, I take it to be primarily a concern of social philosophy (or, if you prefer, social science) because it deals with the particular roots and philosophical implications of what would be a collective (that is to say, social) reaction to pressure upon a group (ie the species). If the mods disagree with this evaluation, I trust that they will not hesitate to relocate this thread to a more appropriate venue. So, are you suggesting that if the situation is reversed, that is, if other intelligent animals are threatened with extinction, the ethics are different than if we are threatened with extinction?

thewatcher
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 160

Posted 07/03/09 - 10:50 PM:	#6
wuliheron wrote: So, are you suggesting that if the situation is reversed, that is, if other intelligent animals are threatened with extinction, the ethics are different than if we are threatened with extinction? That is an aspect of the question I am asking. Nonetheless, an important dimension of the question that your examples neglected was the element of competition between species. Our treatment of dolphins would seem to have different ethical implications from our treatment of AIs that can compete with our species in such a way at to threaten our survival.

John Kievlan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/13/09 - 10:40 AM:	#7
I am not sure that competition between species (including artificial species such as AIs) is ethically distinct from competition between humans, though it may be different in a practical sense (especially since the values and desires of different species are likely to be very different). Remember that the species distinction is essentially arbitrary and based on biological facts rather than ethical or metaphysical facts. The only ethical distinction between species that I can bring myself to see as rational is one based on differing mental capacities -- and even that is problematic (in my view) if you're comparing two self-aware species. Consider how we would view a super-intelligent species that breeds humans like cattle. Naturally, if you grant that the breeding of more humans is the basis (or a major basis) of ethical thought, then everything I've said falls apart. But again, I cannot see the rationality in linking ethics to creating more of a particular type of DNA. If I say I like pig DNA better, and therefore am justified in killing off pork-eaters, you might call me a traitor to my species but you still would have no possible way to demonstrate the irrationality of my beliefs. One last thought: the situation might be different in the case of dangerous non-human DNA (or software, or whatever). Say, for instance, somebody created a human offshoot designed to be genetically sociopathic. The issue there is not that they are non-human but that they are a specific species that is guaranteed to be counter-productive to any sort of social ethics. In that case it might be reasonable to conclude that their survival is unimportant compared to the survival of other self-aware species.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.