Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts

Monday, September 18, 2023

With self-driving cars, it's the ethics we have to navigate; The Japan Times, September 17, 2023

PETER SINGER, The Japan Times ; With self-driving cars, it's the ethics we have to navigate

"One important but often overlooked ethical issue raised by autonomous vehicles is whether they should be programmed to avoid hitting animals and, if so, which ones...How we should value the lives and interests of all sentient beings is a question that AI ethics needs to address."

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Want to Get Along With Robots? Pretend They’re Animals; Wired, April 19, 2021

 , Wired; Want to Get Along With Robots? Pretend They’re Animals

Robotics ethicist Kate Darling surveys our history with animals—in work, war, and companionship—to show how we might develop similar relationships with robots.


"WIRED: That brings us nicely to the idea of agency. One of my favorite moments in human history was when animals were put on trial—like regularly.

KD: Wait. You liked this?

WIRED: I mean, it's horrifying. But I just think that it's a fascinating period in legal history. So why do we ascribe this agency to animals that have no such thing? And why might we do the same with robots?

KD: It's so bizarre and fascinating—and seems so ridiculous to us now—but for hundreds of years of human history in the Middle Ages, we put animals on trial for the crimes they committed. So whether that was a pig that chewed a child's ear off, or whether that was a plague of locusts or rats that destroyed crops, there were actual trials that progressed the same way that a trial for a human would progress, with defense attorneys and a jury and summoning the animals to court. Some were not found guilty, and some were sentenced to death. It’s this idea that animals should be held accountable, or be expected to abide by our morals or rules. Now we don't believe that that makes any sense, the same way that we wouldn't hold a small child accountable for everything.

In a lot of the early legal conversation around responsibility in robotics, it seems that we're doing something a little bit similar. And, this is a little tongue in cheek—but also not really—because the solutions that people are proposing for robots causing harm are getting a little bit too close to assigning too much agency to the robots. There's this idea that, “Oh, because nobody could anticipate this harm, how are we going to hold people accountable? We have to hold the robot itself accountable.” Whether that's by creating some sort of legal entity, like a corporation, where the robot has its own rights and responsibilities, or whether that's by programming the robot to obey our rules and morals—which we kind of know from the field of machine ethics is not really possible or feasible, at least not any anytime soon."

Friday, April 16, 2021

Scientists Create Early Embryos That Are Part Human, Part Monkey; NPR, April 15, 2021

; Scientists Create Early Embryos That Are Part Human, Part Monkey

""This work is an important step that provides very compelling evidence that someday when we understand fully what the process is we could make them develop into a heart or a kidney or lungs," said Dr. Jeffrey Platt, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, who is doing related experiments but was not involved in the new research.

But this type of scientific work and the possibilities it opens up raises serious questions for some ethicists."

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Monday, April 23, 2018

It’s Westworld. What’s Wrong With Cruelty to Robots?; The New York Times, April 23, 2018

Paul Bloom and Sam Harris, The New York Times; It’s Westworld. What’s Wrong With Cruelty to Robots?

"This is where actually watching “Westworld” matters. The pleasure of entertainment aside, the makers of the series have produced a powerful work of philosophy. It’s one thing to sit in a seminar and argue about what it would mean, morally, if robots were conscious. It’s quite another to witness the torments of such creatures, as portrayed by actors such as Evan Rachel Wood and Thandie Newton. You may still raise the question intellectually, but in your heart and your gut, you already know the answer."

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'; Guardian, July 12, 2017

Julia Carrie Wong, Guardian; Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'

"The one consolation for Slater is that he believes that his photograph has helped to save the crested black macaque from extinction.

“These animals were on the way out and because of one photograph, it’s hopefully going to create enough ecotourism to make the locals realize that there’s a good reason to keep these monkeys alive,” Slater said. “The picture hopefully contributed to saving the species. That was the original intention all along.”"

Monday, September 5, 2016

Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher; New York Times, 9/2/16

John P. Gluck, New York Times; Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher:
"In 1974, a federal commission was formed to develop ethical principles for human research. For nearly four years, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research met monthly to develop ethical principles that we rely on for human research. The principles set down in the resulting Belmont Report reflect the moral dimensions of human research that now govern this work. The report revolutionized the understanding of voluntary and informed consent, fair subject recruitment, and the importance of conducting risk-benefit analyses. No such document exists for animal research.
Acknowledging that our serious work as scientists can be a source of pain and distress to sentient, helpless and non-consenting beings can be difficult. The federal government should establish a national commission to develop the principles to guide decisions about the ethics of animal research. We already accept that ethical limits on experiments involving humans are important enough that we are willing to forgo possible breakthroughs. There is no ethical argument that justifies not doing the same for animals."