Do humans have the right to create artificial life?
>have the right
Says who?
rights are taken, not granted
>>439698
I plan on doing so for graduate work if they allow me. I think I could create actual life that could interact within society. They will have their own rights.
>>439698
>Do humans have the right
why shouldn't we, is there someone who is not allowing it?
Life is suffering by default so no
>>439708
God?
Humans don't have the right to create life at all
t. David Benatar
>>439715
If divine intervention ever occurs I'm sure the world will be the first to know
>>439698
humans have been creating artificial lives for year since they keep fucking for other motives than keeping the species alive for thousands of years now
>>439715
Let this so-called God come down and smite us personally if he disapproves of it.
There is no morality, no rights and wrongs, other than those set by our own conscience in process of evolution that allowed functional society. Basically we can do anything we want, because everything is meaningless. The worst is, we will feel bad about it.
>>439736
Hi, morality is basically your empathy giving you a compass. We can actively understand and evaluate situations to make better outcomes.
>>439738
If it isn't absolute, it is meaningless
t.Me
>>439742
Nothing is absolute
t. Epimenides
I think this is a legitimate philosophical question, even from an atheist perspective.
1) Are you doing things that will have profound and possibly disastrous consequences? Life is one of the most miraculous and complex chain reactions. It might not be large in scale, like fusion in the sun, but the ability to both self regulate and dynamically adapt makes life in particular an especially hard thing to predict.
2) How similar to human form or cognition can you get before ethics and morals start kicking in? Right now there's a convenient boundary between humans and non-humans, which is the status quo. On the one hand you have neo-Nazis that think some in this group are undeserving of morals and ethics, and on the other hand you have PETA-shits who think moral and ethics should apply to all animals. But the boundary between human and non-human is a convenient one for morals, ethics and philosophy. What happens when the lines are blurred?
3) Are humans, or direct descendants of humans our ideal life form, not as a supreme being, but in a philosophical sense, do we prize humanity, or do we sacrifice humanity on the altar of the ubermensch? Are humans simply the precursor to a more advanced being, humanity is doomed to extinction, to pave the way for the new ubermensch created to be our superiors? A new era of beings, whether they be organic or machine, that is capable of intentional horizontal adaptation? Are humans the end to vertical evolution, paving the way with horizontal transmission of ideas, for a being capable of intentional complete horizontal evolution?
>>439738
Different people develop different levels of empathy, children actually have almost no empathy at all, traumatic events can heavily limit the capability of empathy in people and empathy is actually pretty inaccurate when dealing with non-humans, which might be relevant in the future when we deal with AIs and other artificial forms of life.
We definitely need something a bit more universal than that.
>>439698
Why not?
>>439715
Who is God?
look at this shit, for me we already made God.
http://computoser.com/
>>439822
Not that great desu. Even 2hu music is better.
>>439822
ew
>>439838
>>439844
http://computoser.com/track/1238
for a computer this sounds fucking great
>>439849
>look at this shit, for me we already made God.
>for a computer this sounds fucking great
God confirmed for subhuman.
Go listen to some 2hu music, one because it's not be some great legendary composer, and two, it's on a synth, just like computer music.
>>439715
>believing in the metaphysical jew
>>439698
Yes, absolutely.
But it will probably be horrible for the artificial life-form, but fuck them anyway.
>>439715
When did He say anything about artificial life? That's like asking if God approves of us creating computers.
>>439698
Do you have the right to say that a human does not have the right to create any form of life, either biological or synthetic?
>>439711
Suffering gives purpose. Everyone would just lie around all day doing nothing if there was no pleasure or pain.
>>439698
Of course we do, what do you think a male and a female do behind closed doors
Humans should do whatever is necessary to further the capabilities and chance of survival of our species.
We should be careful not to create something we can't control or cooperate with, but refusing to move forward with such technology for fear of making gods mad or because it "seems wrong" is the behavior of frightened children.
>>439698
Try and stop me. I will snatch the devine fire from the firmament of heaven its self and like a modern Prometheus craft life in my image, and neither God nor man can stop me! I will know what it means to feel like god!
Soon the mankind have harnessed the power of the sun, Before that we made actually bacteria (aka life) from scratch, Now we are making working limbs.
Safe to say that we are gods now.
>>439698
Yeah but stop pretending that it's actually life.
depends on whether reality is either inherently positive of negative
>>439720
Seconding.
>>439844
Amazing opinion. I feel enlightened and am glad I got up today. This is what our language evolved to be able to convey.
>>439749
Nothing matters
t. 18-yo high school senior
>>445435
I mean, even if it is simple af, it's objectively true. Everyone realises it at some point in their life these days... usually as a 18-yo high school senior.
>>439742
If it is absolute, it is meaningless
t.Me
>>445484
If it is, it is meaningless.
t. You
Do humans have the right? I think humans have the right to anything they want as long as general society allows it. Artificial life doesn't necessarily have to be cruel or even sentient, ex. plants. Artificial life as a current field is intended to create medicines and fuels and other things meant to help humanity. It's nothing malicious.
>>445553
Isn't there a lot of research at the moment into whether plants can feel pain or not, though? Even if we only created life with the same leve of complexity as a plant, we could possibly be creating a creature that can and will only know pain for the entirety of its existence.
Hmm, some rudimentary research suggests that plants can respond to stimuli and have defensive reactions, but not that they necessarily feel pain as we know it.
>>439698
>right
spooks
>>439698
What makes "artificial" life more special than the regular life humans create?
>>447889
we would know how to create it, we do not how the regular one is created, we just know how it is multiplied.
>>439698
Who's to say human life isn't artificial to begin with
>>445435
But if nothing matters, then why am I still afraid to die?
>>449010
Why were you afraid to live?
Why apply the same rules as authentic life to artificial life? Artificial life isn't life - by definition, or else it wouldn't have the "artificial" qualifier. We'd just call it life.
>>449055
artificial means that something was made by a man made skill. by definition artificial life means that it was developed by the man made skill of creating life. we do not have the skills to create life, we have the skills to act as its agents. a true artificial life would mean that we are synthetically combining elements which posses only their mass into selfreplicating and selfsustainable machines.
If we are able to, then yes. I still don't think we should, but it's not because of some ideological reason about keeping nature untouched.
>>441414
Why exist at all?
>>449055
Why view life as anything other than a perception organically or technologically self-created? I mean, technology has efficiently evolved to enhance and augment our perception of reality, or even harm it sometimes. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time something has evolved in a more harmful or more beneficial way to the survival of the species. Like, for instance, how sometimes the sub-species become the parent species in evolution. The same works with technology, different technology adapts and evolves and creates different perceptions for the people experiencing reality within the different technological advances.
People living with sole proprietorships in the French countryside in the early 1800s has a much different 'life' than a millenial does today. And who can say if it is better or worse? Just different due to evolutionary factors, even moreso if you believe in social Darwinism
>>439698
yes.
>life creating life
i dont think its wrong. but it very much depends on how advanced we are and how we do it. i think
>splicing genes haphazardly
not so good and has dire ramifications
>elevating the evolution of a species by enabling certain beneficial genes and diminishing others
night be the better way. idk
>>449087
>Nature made an aspect of nature separate from itself
biggest bullshit I ever read. nature created us with the purpose, a purpose that is equal to all life and that purpose is simple, achieving the pinacle of natural fitness capable to survive as effectively as possible.
we may believe we are sentient beings and we are and that the decisions that we make, are our own, but the human came with its tasks inherent, spread and survive, tasks that never changed, since the first life to the very last.
>>439732
>problems of hard conscious
There are literal retards on this board.
>>449136
> achieving the pinacle of natural fitness capable to survive as effectively as possible.
Not really, it's reproduction.
>>450238
humanity a cancer anon, a virus that is conditioned to spread to every inkling of the cosmos that it can and if it cant it will devour itself in starvation.
[spoiler]And that is the raddest shit ever, humanity stronk, achieve natural imperative and never feel bad about it [/spoiler]
>>439715
>implying god exists within causality
>implying if he didint want us to be able to, we would ever be able to in accordance with a planned universe
>Implying true A.i or synthetic consciousness is possible
>implying intelligence is only true when applied to a neural net system instead of a basic logic gate
>Implying intelligence devoid of consciousness is life worthy of creating with the intent of playing god
>implying we aren't conditioned with paternal instincts that desire a child like entity
>implying rights are given not taken
>implying rights imply ethics
>implying ethics implying moral justification
>implying the right to give birth and the right to 'give birth' are separate entities despite having the same effect of new native intelligence being introduced
>>439698
I don't see why they shouldn't.
No.
>>439703
rights are shaken, not stirred
>>439698
Even though I can be ass and say rights don't really exist I will answer it differently. I would say that if the thing he creates has little thought capacity and cannot hurt people then yes, if the creature has intelligence then the creator has a duty to ensure that ithe doesn't suffer as much as possible
>>439750
Look I just want my artificial loli.
>>441536
I'll never know anon...
>>454062
>3) Are humans, or direct descendants of humans our ideal life form, not as a supreme being, but in a philosophical sense, do we prize humanity, or do we sacrifice humanity on the altar of the ubermensch? Are humans simply the precursor to a more advanced being, humanity is doomed to extinction, to pave the way for the new ubermensch created to be our superiors? A new era of beings, whether they be organic or machine, that is capable of intentional horizontal adaptation? Are humans the end to vertical evolution, paving the way with horizontal transmission of ideas, for a being capable of intentional complete horizontal evolution?
Are you implying the loli mater race will displace humans, and the future of life in the universe is lolis?
Everything is possible. Rights are human delusion at the end of the day. You can literally do whatever you wish, you just have to prepare for the consequences.
Right? We have the duty of doing it.
Denying a life to exist in the first place is equivalent to ending it, if we can sustainably mass-produce consciousnesses, we absolutely must.
>>455599
I, for one, look forward to our loli overlords.
Would you take a bullet for a synth?
>>439698
Yes because I want my waifu to become real.
>>439698
Of course not. Humans have no right to have children, either.
>>449087
>le humanz are so more special and smartzer than animalz!
>>439736
>There is no morality
Maybe at the atomic abstraction. But on the human abstraction level, morality is very very real.
This is like saying "cars aren't real".
Depends, do I have the right to create an autistic teenage year old clone who's completely in love with me and DTF 24/7?
