poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (01/17/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 17 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 4
Contents: Parable of the Bad Shepard
Abortion
Standard Oil
Actor's Union (all above one @ msg)
Designer Genes (many msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 21:43:04-EST
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: the Tale of the Bad Shepherd
The Tale of the Bad Shepherd
----------------------------
Once upon a time, there was a rich shepherd, who had many sheep.
He pastured them by the river, and waxed fat on their produce.
But the wolves came and preyed upon the sheep.
Now the shepherd was cowardly, lazy, and bad. He could have
protected his sheep, by his own efforts or by those of his
hirelings, but he would not. He thought
"It is too dangerous for me to protect the sheep,
and too expensive to hire brave servants. Besides,
the wolves take only one or two sheep a day, and I
can stand the loss."
So he did nothing. Until, one day, a servant came to him,
and told him that he had seen a wolf, down in the valley,
badly wounded.
The shepherd went out to see this thing for himself, and, passing
a flock of his sheep, perceived an alarming thing. Some of the
sheep, despairing of other defence, had grown fangs, and claws,
and were sharpening them on the stones, and adopting a fierce
countenance. And even falling on the wolves, and driving them off.
At this, the bad shepherd was greatly agitated, and thought
"If the sheep defend themselves today against the wolves,
shall they not tomorrow defy even me and my herdsmen?
And then I shall not be able to treat them how I please,
or drive them where I will, or fleece them for my profit,
and grow fat on their backs"
So he called all his servants, and bade them scour the country, and,
were they to find any sheep with the means of defending itself, they
were to slay it at once. For he said
"The sheep are our prey, the wolves and I, and it is
against the established order of things, that they
should seek to defend themselves"
Robert Firth
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1985 1142-PST
From: Richard M. King <DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: why abortion isn't murder
I have two hypotheses as to why abortion should be and is considered
distinct from infanticide by most people, even though a feotus is arguably
human. I claim that even most of the crazies make the distinction; they
will support abortion to save the life of the mother even though the law
does not permit a person to kill another persion when in a situation such
that the second person endangers the first through no fault. Murder in an
airtight room, so the murderer can survive, is still murder.
The hypotheses may be related. I publish this to elicit comment:
1> "surprise" hypothesis: abortion is not murder because a fetus's hold on
life is tenuous, ie. a miscarrage is not a surprise.
support for hypothesis: infanticide is more frequently tolerated in
societies where a young infant's hold on life is tenuous than in one where
infant mortality rates are low. Euthenasia does not bear the same revulsion
as murder. Life tends to be cheaper (more frequent capital punishment) in
places with low life expectancies. Few people claim an IUD or "morning
after" contraceptive is murder, and I note that failed implantation (the
result these "contraceptive" systems are designed to insure, that the
fertilized egg never sticks to the uteral lining) is more common than
successful implantation. No culture that I know of holds a funeral for a
miscarrige.
problem: standards for euthenasia tend to require that death be a near
certainty.
2> "Schrodinger's kid" hypothesis: you are not carrying a specific fetus,
which cannot be replaced. You are carrying a superposition of all possible
fetuses, and that can be replaced.
this solves the euthenasia problem with the last hypothesis, but I can't
think of any strong support.
Pardon the rough syntax; I dash these things off rather than polish them
because I'm pretty busy these days...
I eagerly await comments...
Dick
PS: a way to prevent abortion clinic bombings would be to occupy the clinics
at night. This would be especially important Monday (anniversary of Roe v
Wade). You have to publicize this occupation.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1985 19:44 EST
From: Jim Aspnes <ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: oil's "robber barons"?
Another charge against Standard Oil in particular is that it actively
conspired with public officials to extract oil from public lands without
commensurate compensation to the government (a practice which, though
actively encouraged by the present Administration, was considered
scandalous at the time). Look for books on the Teapot Dome scandal.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 85 12:41:04 pst
Cheeses: Roquefort, Gorgonzola, Camembert
From: fagin%ucbdali@Berkeley (Barry Steven Fagin)
The article on the request for non-union actors prompts my
first posting to poli-sci. FLAME ON!
Shame, shame, shame on the Actors Union and its spokespersons!
Human beings have the natural right to conduct their economic
affairs with one another under ANY terms they agree on.
Exploitation? Certainly not. I suggest we ask the actors who
auditioned how they felt about being exploited. They chose
their vocation, and are doubtless pleased, if not elated, about
the opportunity to perform in public. These actors also chose,
for whatever reason, not to join a union. What right does
anyone have to tell them otherwise? I am apalled at the blatant
and unconcealed greed of the Actors Union as it attempts to
use political power to advance the self-interest of its
rank and file.
Does the Actors Union have a right to protest? Of course.
They can protest all they want. They're at liberty to persuade
anyone they can to boycott the festivities, watch only plays
performed with union actors, and so forth. But I hope to God
noone takes any claim of legal action (if such is forthcoming)
seriously. It's bad enough that we have a minimum wage --
we shouldn't, but that's another story. To tolerate this kind
of blatant intervention in the personal affairs of our citizenry
is unconscionable. Barf.
--Barry Fagin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1985 19:38 EST
From: Jim Aspnes <ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Binary Rights
Ah, but we already assign a spectrum of developing rights based on presumed
degrees of sentience: in New Jersey, when I grew up, one could drive a moped
at 15, be tried in adult courts at 16, drive an automobile at 17, vote at
18, and drink at 19. From then on, assuming one didn't try to run for
national office or collect Social Security, one's rights wouldn't change by
much.
Although the use of age as a measure of sentience (usually phrased as
"responsibility") is somewhat justifiable by reasons of historical
expediency, I was well able to ignore this justification when still
under the influence of age-based restrictions. I find it interesting
that you should consider the possibility of granting partial human
status to unusually-intelligent chimpanzees when we continue to deny
many of the privileges of society to persons that are demonstrably
members of our own species, demonstrably sentient, and, in many cases
demonstrably contributing as much to our society as persons twice
their age.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 09:37:36-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Binary Rights
I've always believed that competency was a better measure for
driving rights, etc. My general psoition is that rights
should be granted based on a set of characteristics of the individual
(human or otherwise), and not on some characteristic that statistically
is convenient (eg age).
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1985 14:56 EST
From: Jim Aspnes <ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Binary Rights
Agreed. Forgive my unwarranted flamage.
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Forgiven! I prefer flamage to apathy!
TCS
[Yep, that's two msgs --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 14:13:27-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Rights/designer genes
Comments on a couple of responses:
1) Doubt was expressed about whether or not we will build "inferior"
beings for menial tasks, the assumption being that robots will be
available to do the tasks. I'm not at all convinced that
articfical intelligence/coordination will advance faster than our
ability to build organisms. In any case, there will be some service
type jobs that require at least the appearance of being human--
many people would object to a robot clearing their table,
for example. This raises another question--
what is the link between sentience and language?
2) It would not be hard to create superior beings--greater strength,
quicker reactions, better eyesight, better memory recall are all
obvious options. There will also be a host of cosmetic options,
which would be debateably superior. Another question--should parents
be "allowed" to determine some of the physical characteristics of
their kids? Many will certainly do so regardless, once it
becomes an option technically.
3) A suggestion was made that any non- "damaged" human could outperform
any genius chimp. I think this will only be the case if you stretch
the definition of "damaged" to include individuals on the lower ends
of the genetic distributions (or as I prefer to call it, the shallow
end of the gene pool). The natural distribution of intelligence in humans
produces some really marginal units, and as Murphy's law states, for
every 10, there are 10 "1's".
4) An objection was raised about my suggestion that
we should have a spectrum of rights, rather than binary rights. The
objection was based on the assumption that such a spectrum would
create "classes" of people and be destablizing. I think the current
world proves this to be incorrect--we do have a spectrum of rights now.
Not everyone is allowed to fly, or to drive a car. Not everyone is
allowed to practice law, or medicine. Not everyone is "allowed"
to own a yacht. I am simply proposing that we expand the
number of areas where competence must be proven, and to do on an
an individual basis rather than statistically (eg, by age).
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1985 11:16-PST
Subject: Re: Rights/designer genes
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[This is awful! I should be doing real work.]
On inferior beings as servants and garbage collectors:
I doubt that any incentive exists to build inferior beings. In
the case of "clearing the table", i.e. household servants, we must take into
account a society's evaluation of the role. The role of "gentleman's
gentleman" need neither lack in prestige nor financial gain. Indeed, our
society's views on these jobs changes from time to time.
While American society may not look kindly on professional help, it is
my understanding that Japanese businesses use official "greeters" as an extra
lure to attract customers. Japanese society puts more emphasis on being
polite.
Inferior beings are not likely to be useful in places like restaurants
either. Denny's and McDonalds class help is very cheap. Why bother to
replace it? As for "higher" class establishments, well even I appreciate
a waiter who knows the difference between Stag's Leap Winery and Stag's Leap
Vineyards.
How soon do you think it will be before we have a Mars Rover? The AI
technology required for this kind of mission is very likely more complicated
than picking up garbage on a well-established route. Research into rover
vehicles has been going on for over 10 years and I believe that by the end of
the century we will have one. It begins to look like a question about which
technology will develop first and be easiest to apply.
More on the other subjects later.
Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 15:45:18-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Rights/designer genes
One possible motivation for building organisms over robots may be
maintainence--I know of no complex, *mobile* machine that
does not require frequent, and frequently expensive, repairs. I suspect
it will be a very long time before machines are developed with the
self-repairing capabilities that organisms possess.
In general I agree that it is a question of which technology
develops more quickly, and my guess is that it will be a close race. A
garbage collection robot would be a good deal more complex than a
Mars rover because of the pattern recognition requirements, and the
need for quick decisions in interactions with other independently
controlled machines. If there were Martians to deal with, of course,
that would be different.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1985 17:59-PST
Subject: Building a better mouse trap (Re: Rights/designer genes)
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
Regarding the creation of a better human:
What you really said was that it would not be hard to decide on what
would make a better being "...greater strength, quicker reactions, better
eyesight, better memory recall...". Knowing the goal is not the same as
knowing how to achieve it. I am not sure that I would agree on your "obvious
options".
We live in a push-button world and greater strength and reflexes are
becoming less and less valuable (who, or what, flies the shuttle?). Today the
average person does not develop to the fullest all possible mental and physical
attributes. How many people out there would be, if given a nurturing
environment, Olympic class athletes or genus class thinkers? With so much
unused potential I do not see how you could even begin to make improvements.
One more problem that I have heard discussed is that the human
brain can not get much bigger, if at all, due to the limited size of the
birth canal. A baby's brain is almost as big as it will get when born and
it is as big as it can be and still get out undamaged. Perhaps first you
had better engineer women with wider hips.
Craig
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1985 10:57-PST
Subject: Rights and Privileges (Re: Rights/designer genes)
From: Craig E. Ward <WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
On a spectrum of rights:
I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. Things like driving
an automobile or flying an airplane are privileges not rights. The State of
California is very fond of pointing out that driving is a privilege, not a
right, and that they can take it away from you if you do not respect others
exercising the privilege. (Sometimes a very hollow threat).
In general, rights fall into the class of all things dealing with
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (whether you want to say they
come from the creator or social contract). Society can not put artificial
barriers on the exercise of these rights and remain stable for long.
To say that not everyone is "allowed" to own a yacht is completely
bogus. Simple possession of the necessary funds is neither a right nor a
privilege. The rights involved deal with the attempt to acquire the funds
limited only by the person's own capabilities. Everyone has the right to
try; however, success in never guaranteed.
Similarly, trying to use the practice of particular profession
is equally bogus, unless you are going to create a "right to lie". Not
everyone is allowed to practice medicine because not everyone has made
a successful attempt at learning how to practice medicine.
Craig
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------