|
|
|
|
|
by jonmrodriguez
2783 days ago
|
|
Patrick, don't you think you should reflect on what you are doing before taking sentient neurons and forcing them to live their entire lives confined inside a machine, with no possibility of escape? How would you enjoy being born into such captivity? What would you do if you were experiencing an endless state of pain but lacked the language ability to communicate your pain to your owner? I have written to the Vatican already suggesting that they push to make neural slavery illegal, as it violates the principle of the dignity of sentient life. I hope you will please reflect on what you are doing and stop doing it voluntarily instead of waiting for the laws to change and make what you are doing illegal. Whether legal or not, any form of slavery is immoral. |
|
From a national security perspective, the West has to get over its crippling squeamishness on all things genomics or else the Chinese will completely dominate the neuromorphic space.
From a moral perspective, if you are concerned about stopping slavery, I recommend tackling actual instances of it, such as the open air slave markets in Libya or addressing the valid concerns of any one of the hundreds of millions of rural Chinese.
From an ethical standpoint, there are a couple federally funded institutions that traffic stem cells who could use some spotlight in them.
I'm unsure if a religious institution mired in worldwide pedophilia accusations is the right party you want to associate with to stop this. I recommend stepping off the soapbox for a moment and try explaining, precisely, how many neurons are required for the sentience you are describing. Is it 1? 10? 1,345?
Quantifying sentience is your burden. Blanket policies of "all neurons are sacred" are prematurely alarmist.