James HughesExecutive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

April 11, 2010 – Manchester UK Beyond the Body? Perspectives on Enhancement

"The posthuman will come to see us (the garden variety human) as an inferior subspecies without human rights to be enslaved or slaughtered preemptively. It is this potential for genocide based on genetic difference, that I have termed "genetic genocide," that makes species-altering genetic engineering a potential weapon of mass destruction." (Annas, 2001)

Senator Kelly: "Are mutants dangerous? We license people to drive."(X-Men) Dr. Grey: "But not to live."

Can we distinguish the two?

Fundamental rights – health, life, bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty

Derivative rights – the right to own a gun

The threshold for restricting fundamental rights is higher than for derivative

Setting aside libertarian claims to absolute freedoms…

Liberal social contract permits restrictions on liberty that reduce Injury to others Self-injury The right to bear arms

Knowability of tangible risks of enhancement technologies

Likelihood of malicious use, genocide, inequality, moral chaos, eternal damnation

Balance of costs of restricting liberty with likelihood*magnitude of harms

Maximalist assessment of risk

Bioconservative risk estimates grounded in yuck factor so that tech bans seem only logical policy

More options than to celebrate or ban

Dual use dilemmas not new: Many useful things are

potential weapons Many things have

catastrophic risks if used carelessly or maliciously

Restricting dangerous use while permitting beneficial use

Mandatory: literacy Universal access and

subsidized: health Laissez-faire: electronics Licensure: driving,

flying, guns, opiates Only state personnel:

automatic weapons Banned: WMDs

Control of tons of metal: Age restriction Drivers’ licensure Licensure of vehicles Type and condition of vehicle Periodic re-licensure Loss of license for infractions

No age restrictions or licensure for cellphones, but Bans on use of cell-phones in

cars

Regulations By age By training and

licensure By occupation By proof of legitimate

use By location

The 4400: 50/50 chance of dying

or getting a superpower

All superpowers different

50% mortality, no consistent outcome

high likelihood of self-injury and social disruption

Unkillable people would be more dangerous.

Regulate superlongevity/healing?

Intelligence is, in general, a good for individuals and society

How smart is dangerously smart?

Restriction of certain kinds of knowledge for security reasons

Extended cognition: restricting hackers access to computers

Politicians, journalists, religious leaders?

Supersight Superhearing Echolocation X-ray vision Same rules as govern

eavesdropping, spying, voyeurism

An issue in athletics, but not for society

Although it would facilitate crime

No regulations now on physical strength or licensure of martial arts

“excessive force” in self-defense

Same rules as civil aviation and parachuting?

We don’t currently regulate acting or makeup

But we do “identity theft”

Licensure for use of dangerously powerful AI

Self-willed machine minds must be proven to be limited and responsible enough to wield their own powers

Drug and device safety approval procedures

Licensure processes to demonstrate maturity, control and responsible use of dangerous enhancements

Laws to punish criminal use

Right to health, longevity, bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty are presumably fundamental

Rights to drive, own guns, fly, superstrength are presumably derivative

Mandatory: no risks, no violation of fundamental rights, with individual and social benefits

Universal access and subsidized: minimal risks, requires consent, social benefits

Laissez-faire: to ban would violate fundamental rights

Licensure: derivative rights, but some social benefits: driving, flying, guns, opiates

Only state personnel or banned: strong social risks

James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

director@ieet.org http://ieet.org