The universe gives us more than we can handle so we can grow as people. No, I have not just said something profound. The quote comes from a Netflix film my brothers are playing in the back. Initially, this article was meant to be some ingenious motif demonstrating how homo sapiens and robots aren't so different after all. Writing with vodka coursing through your veins tends to put an end to any grand ambitions one has. If it weren't for spell check half of what I've written would be unintelligible. If I can draft something coherent in this brain-addled state, I will call that a win. Technically, I really should quote my sources. Somehow I have turned into such a nerd that even drunk me is concerned with proper citation. "The F..k it list" is the name of the movie if anyone is interested. Technically, the actual line references an aunt who has this fantastic life philosophy, but the point remains. Challenges are thrown at us to make us stronger. What does 'change' mean, though? Like everyone else, I've decided to use a questionable Internet source to give all my answers after three seconds of searching.
Challenge- a task or situation that tests someone's abilities.
Think about that for a moment. Challenges have to TEST you. Sitting in the dentist's office and completing that kid's toy with the brightly coloured wires is not a challenge to me. I could bash the whole thing out in a minute flat and take the rest of the day off. 1 + 1 = 2 is a challenge for reception classes on the first day because toddlers have never seen maths before. Spelling decisive would be enough to win you a second-grade spelling bee. Walk into Oxford and that same level of knowledge isn't going to cut it. What is challenging is conceptual? Some people find it difficult to get out of the house, while others set earning millions of dollars as their daily goals. Take riding a bike. Children learn how to pedal on two wheels all the time. Spoiler, I never learned. My balance is shot. At sixteen, I was still on stabilisers. These things were heavy-duty, adult training devices and I bent the thing on a bike ride with my family down the local canal. In a world where people assume that you can pop out over the moors with your friends randomly on a Saturday, being unable to participate in what amounts to a global cult is a big deal. E.T, Stranger Things, almost every cult coming-of-age film you can think of has the stars riding a bike as if it's no big deal. When you've grown up outside that whole experience, having the world rub your failings in your face all the time is a massive blow.
To summarise, what is a challenge is different for everybody. Yes, I've already said that. The premise is not, however, limited to individuals. The same rules govern societies. Why do we celebrate women being able to drive in Saudi Arabia while people in the UK march over the fact Yorkies are "just for men"? LGBT lobbyists go to the White House every day trying to support gender conversion therapy or gender-neutral bathrooms in schools. At the same time, coming out gay can still result in social ostracisation, a lifetime of ridicule and even death. Nothing I say is meant to undermine the incredible work activists are doing across the globe to rescue our planet from the smog, the corruption hanging over our heads like a guillotine. Save the whales, end racism, take back our childhoods. What I say should not be taken as criticism. Instead, take my words as a social commentary. Some nations, cultures, whatever the politically correct term is are prepared to leap bravely into the unknown, tackling Universal Credit or zero emissions. Meanwhile, others see it as a win when they create a living wage or ensure everyone has the opportunity to learn to read and write. Only by accepting these imperfections, these inequalities, can we make real progress.
Once again, I have gone almost half an article without mentioning the words 'robot', 'A.I', or 'rights'. On a blog meant to discuss all these topics, failing to reference these terms is kind of ridiculous. Unlike some of my pieces, at least on this occasion, I have half an article to claw my way back. I guess I'd better get to clawing then.
Talking about attempts to create a carbon-neutral society was intentional. Getting rid of diesel, oil, and coal is a massive ask. Replacing powerplants with solar panels or wind turbines is one thing. Running F1 off hope, international travel off the dreams of children or space flight using laughter is a whole other matter. Sydney has announced that the city is now run on one hundred percent renewable sources. With the right winds, Scotland can produce enough power to export to the rest of the UK. So far though, no country has managed to phase out petrol. Hybrid cars are coming along nicely, but there is still a long way to go. 2035, 2050, 2070, 2100 politicians keep pushing back the deadline. Britain still lacks the infrastructure; those traversing Texas can go hours without a gas station, let alone a charging point. Changing technology which has been around since the Industrial Revolution was never going to be easy.
Robot rights faces many of the same hurdles as making communities more environmentally friendly. Listing similar problems created is probably an excellent place to start.
Each of these points illustrates challenges to be overcome.
Concerning one, technology is obviously vital to the development of robot rights. Robots are technology. If science does not progress to allow us to develop sophisticated enough machines, any debate about robot rights is purely theoretical. However, innovation is also essential in giving robots rights. Courts need some way to test personhood. New instruments, gadgets and gizmos make assessing personhood that much more straightforward. As psychology and neuroscience develop, we better understand the brain, allowing us to replicate what makes us a person. Comparing whatever mechanisms constitute a machine with the human physiology makes it easier for judges to declare when the threshold for personhood is met. Governments could role out personhood tests to the same scale as the SATs. Our problem is creating systems to accomplish all these amazing things.
Two addresses the fact fighting for robot rights is an uphill battle. Companies have invested billions in building robots, artificial intelligence, basically anything that can help automate our lives. Suddenly pulling the rug from under the feet of Apple, Microsoft and DeepMind cannot end well. Mass corporations will not support laws which prevent them from recovering their losses. That's without even having to convince someone to manufacture robots after the passing of legislation. Unless robots actually exist, robot rights is like flogging a dead horse. An existence in servitude could well be better than no existence at all. Until reformers can figure out a way to give robots rights without disincentivising developments in robotics entirely, it could be better not to enact robot rights at all. Finding the correct balance may well be one of those things which are indeed too much for us to handle.
Robotic rights will also lead to unpopular decisions. Until now, being a homo sapien has been necessary and sufficient to personhood. Reform completely undermines the status quo. Either, whatever criteria required for personhood will exclude particular homo sapiens or the requirements will be so broad to deprive it of all practical application. Excluding individual homo sapiens from personhood would reject thousands of years of moral and legal development. Human rights law assumes all men are equal. Using robotic rights as a pretence to curtail civil liberties would be to embrace an Orwellian future. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Meanwhile, a broad personhood test, designed to embrace all homo sapiens could be over-inclusive. The lowest recorded IQ is 40, a score your average dog could beat. Focusing on EQ could exclude psychopaths, not just murderous psychopaths but those integrated into society. I read somewhere that psychopaths can make the most effective CEOs, for example, because they can make difficult choices without remorse. Therefore, too extensive a test would open the floodgates to other causes. Dolphins, apes and pigs would all deserve similar protection. Some animal rights activists would say developments on a vast scale is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the concern should, at the least, prevent a knee-jerking reaction.
All these issues, hurdles, problems, call them what you will demonstrate how campaigning for robot rights encapsulates the idea some challenges are too much for us to handle. Nothing I've said has attempted to resolve the problems I have presented. How we should test personhood, how to incentives companies to create people, the boundaries of personhood testing, these are all problems I have yet to solve. Maybe someone has already resolved all of the issues I have highlighted. Good for them— so far as I know, these questions are still outstanding. Complications in addressing difficult questions should not though prevent us from trying to tackle these issues. Rome was not built in a day. Robot rights might just be more than we can handle. Evolving will take time. When society comes out the other side, we will have grown as people.
