turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (04/10/90)
[Cross-posted from another group] I wrote: >> ... Reprogramming the brain so that such specific behavior >> results is beyond current technology, and differs in kind from >> the effects of current recreational drugs. In article <E__l?55@cs.psu.edu>, bralick@bree.endor.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > I stated clearly that the substance was hypothetical. ... >> Hence, the reasonable way to treat such a drug-program is as >> the deployment of any other weapon. Being under the influence >> of such a drug-program in the presence would constitute assault, >> just as does drawing a knife on a person, even if one does not >> use it. (If the knife or the drug-program actually do their job, >> one is also guilty of battery or more.) > Thus (I assume) you too support legalization of _P_ or perhaps I should > say that you are opposed to its prohibition. > > Well, now we can turn to some perplexing issues. This substance must > be sold to be consumed. How do those who are opposed to the prohibiton > of drugs recommend that they be sold? ... I have no doubt that in coming centuries the ability to reprogram the brain -- and hence, the personality, the memory, and perhaps even fine-tuning the choices one makes -- will become a viable technology. It is only from this technology that the dread substance _P_ can derive. Once one recognizes the technology behind Mr Bralick's example, it also becomes clear that his substance _P_ is unlikely to be sold separately as a substance. What people will buy are kits for "neural reprogramming". Much like a knife, with which one can both gut a fish and kill a person, such a kit is also a general purpose tool, allowing the user to change the user's persona in a wide variety of ways. (One reason each user will buy a kit rather than a tailored product is that -- at least initially -- such program-drugs will have to be tailored to individual users.) Most people will use these kits to suppress neuroses, depression, and compulsive behavior; increase abilities; and (of course) to provide the perfect high. Some criminally inclined people will use these kits to increase their ability to do wrong. Unfortunately, it is likely that any tool that allows one to repress compulsion or a bad temper will also allow one to magnify these things. So the question is NOT how would we sell substance _P_, but how would we sell the technology to perform neural reprogramming. Mr Bralick might complain that this violates his hypothetical example. In response, I can only say that I have little interest in discussing how the legal system should take into account magical substances. If we are going to discuss something that guarantees violent behavior in all of its users, then in my opinion we should do so in a framework that has some possible relation to ourselves and our future, not just in some alternate fantasy world where people and drugs behave very differently from the way they do here. As I said, the technology for neural reprogramming is coming, if not in the next few decades, then certainly in the next few centuries. The legal issues it will foment are interesting. But the only way to discuss them with any rationality is to look at the technology as a whole, not merely at one small example of it. Substance _P_ is less dangerous than a program-drug that creates sociopaths, because someone who is guaranteed to behave violently is quickly caught, while someone who does so selectively can often continue wreaking havoc for years. The technology is the same in both cases. But we do not jail someone for being a sociopath. Should we jail someone for turning himself into a sociopath? So allow me to raise the general question. How should the legal system deal with a technology that allows people to reprogram their neural responses, ie, their personality, their abilities, their compulsions, their memories, and their emotions? A related question involves how a legal system should make use of such technology. Removing the ability to commit violence from a murderer seems an eminently reasonable part of the criminal justice system. What about people who have the tendencies that can lead to murder, but who have not acted on them yet? Should these people be mandatorily re-programmed? All of a sudden, what seems the perfect treatment for crime is also revealed as the perfect tool of an Orwellian regime. How do we prevent the state from abusing a technology which is so well tailored to its purposes? The future is scary, but it is coming whether we like it or not, and often the things that are the most fearsome also hold the most promise for good. Russell