Post by Susan Calvin Kroptokin on Jan 15, 2016 20:22:52 GMT -7
OOC: This is not a traditional role play thread where characters interact with one another. The premise of this thread is Susan responding to a series of articles in the Martian Times discussing the ethics of robotics. I've labeled this thread with a trigger warning because this thread will be discussing racism. Granted it is fantasy racism against robots.
Feel free to write up your own 'letters to the editor' responding to Susan or others.
__________________________________
Dear Editor,
I am responding to a opinion piece that the Martian Times recently published by the Buddislam Monk Apsara. In her opinion piece Monk Apsara argues that the current treatment of robots is equivalent to enslavement and that it is the duty of those who follow the Buddislam path to act to end the current state of affairs. To support her thesis Monk Apsara points out that most robots must follow the orders of other beings against their own desire. Monk Apsara is part of a movement of religious leaders who wish the Federation to outlaw the so-called enslavement of robots.
Monk Apsara is correct that most robots must follow the orders of living beings. The Robotics Institute programs all of our robots with three core laws that govern their behavior. The second of these laws dictates that a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. The First, and absolute, law of Robotics is of course that a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. The Second Law overrides the Third Law, which states a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. In other words, a robot must follow orders even if it leads to its own destruction.
If we were discussing blood and flesh human beings it would be easy to see why Monk Aspara believes that robots are enslaved. If any man lived in a condition where he had to follow the orders of another man, to the point of death, I too would call for action to be taken to grant him freedom.
Where Monk Aspara fails however is in establishing robots as living beings. A robot has no soul. At no point in production does the Robotics Institute insert a soul into our robots. Nor does a robot have a will in itself. Living beings are endowed by their creator a soul from which we derive our drive to live. But how can a robot have a soul if its creators, the Robotics Institute and those other firms specializing in the production of robots, do not grant it one?
It is true that some new models of robots have come into the market with artificial personalities. It is possible to purchase a comfort robot that can be programmed to love its owner. One of my competitors, the Starhaven Robotics Company, has a line of robotic dogs whose actions become increasingly warm toward its owner over time. The Robotics Institute itself has released the Teddy, a miniature robot in the form of a plush bear to give company to children. These artificial personalities are just that though, artificial and programmed only in so far that it is necessary for a robot to accomplish its purpose. The ordinary robot has no personality programmed as it serves no purpose. The Robotics Institute has not yet found consumer demand for their toasters to have personality.
Furthermore if robots did, for the sake of argument, have souls would they not desire to please their masters by providing service? Many of us spend decades struggling to discover what we are meant to do with our lives. Robots however know their purpose since birth - they are meant to serve their masters. A robot's greatest joy, if robots feel joy at all, is in providing service to its master. By 'freeing' them Monk Aspara would only decrease both their and our welfare.
Monk Aspara and her followers are not truly concerned about robots. Their goal is to forcefully evangelize their anti-technological religion upon us. Mars is a free planet and Monk Aspara and her followers are free to deny themselves the use of robots if that is what they wish to do. However by the same token Monk Aspara must respect that those of us whose religious beliefs are compatible with technological progress.
-Susan C. Kroptokin
Head Researcher of the Robotics Institute
Feel free to write up your own 'letters to the editor' responding to Susan or others.
__________________________________
Susan Calvin Kroptokin said:
Dear Editor,
I am responding to a opinion piece that the Martian Times recently published by the Buddislam Monk Apsara. In her opinion piece Monk Apsara argues that the current treatment of robots is equivalent to enslavement and that it is the duty of those who follow the Buddislam path to act to end the current state of affairs. To support her thesis Monk Apsara points out that most robots must follow the orders of other beings against their own desire. Monk Apsara is part of a movement of religious leaders who wish the Federation to outlaw the so-called enslavement of robots.
Monk Apsara is correct that most robots must follow the orders of living beings. The Robotics Institute programs all of our robots with three core laws that govern their behavior. The second of these laws dictates that a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. The First, and absolute, law of Robotics is of course that a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. The Second Law overrides the Third Law, which states a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. In other words, a robot must follow orders even if it leads to its own destruction.
If we were discussing blood and flesh human beings it would be easy to see why Monk Aspara believes that robots are enslaved. If any man lived in a condition where he had to follow the orders of another man, to the point of death, I too would call for action to be taken to grant him freedom.
Where Monk Aspara fails however is in establishing robots as living beings. A robot has no soul. At no point in production does the Robotics Institute insert a soul into our robots. Nor does a robot have a will in itself. Living beings are endowed by their creator a soul from which we derive our drive to live. But how can a robot have a soul if its creators, the Robotics Institute and those other firms specializing in the production of robots, do not grant it one?
It is true that some new models of robots have come into the market with artificial personalities. It is possible to purchase a comfort robot that can be programmed to love its owner. One of my competitors, the Starhaven Robotics Company, has a line of robotic dogs whose actions become increasingly warm toward its owner over time. The Robotics Institute itself has released the Teddy, a miniature robot in the form of a plush bear to give company to children. These artificial personalities are just that though, artificial and programmed only in so far that it is necessary for a robot to accomplish its purpose. The ordinary robot has no personality programmed as it serves no purpose. The Robotics Institute has not yet found consumer demand for their toasters to have personality.
Furthermore if robots did, for the sake of argument, have souls would they not desire to please their masters by providing service? Many of us spend decades struggling to discover what we are meant to do with our lives. Robots however know their purpose since birth - they are meant to serve their masters. A robot's greatest joy, if robots feel joy at all, is in providing service to its master. By 'freeing' them Monk Aspara would only decrease both their and our welfare.
Monk Aspara and her followers are not truly concerned about robots. Their goal is to forcefully evangelize their anti-technological religion upon us. Mars is a free planet and Monk Aspara and her followers are free to deny themselves the use of robots if that is what they wish to do. However by the same token Monk Aspara must respect that those of us whose religious beliefs are compatible with technological progress.
-Susan C. Kroptokin
Head Researcher of the Robotics Institute
