With the advancement of science nowadays, we are able to see many new inventions and innovations emerging around the world daily. However, one of the most prominent of these creations, especially in the field of biology, is artificial life. Life on Earth is already complex as it is and scientists have already discovered huge amounts of organisms, species, countless and different genomes and Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) codes…etc. This has made artificial life seem to be an intimidating subject since it would be even more complex; particularly because it is a simulation of these living organisms that are already vast in nature. While most scientists aren’t really up for the challenge of creating A-life, it is still a known fact that synthetic …show more content…
For it had a huge effect on the ethical point of view of the society. Thus, from this we can conclude that a lot of people have various ethics surrounding this topic. Most people believe that there are just some aspects of life that we should avoid messing with; especially, those that oppose nature. The main ethical issue around this topic is that people accuse scientists of ‘playing god’ because the idea of making life petrifies them; they also believe it’s not natural. However, science has a completely different point of view, for most scientists actually understand that artificial life can actually improve many issues we face nowadays; for instance, A-life can help with pollution, creating biofuels…etc. Nevertheless, most people “worry that artificial organisms will have an uncertain functional status and consequently an uncertain moral status”; thus, a lot of people oppose the topic and cannot fathom the actual importance of …show more content…
Moreover, Artificial life, whilst still a recent topic, has had a lot of consequences on humans and there were both positive effects, such as A-life producing certain drugs; or it could be negative, for instance creating A-life is a long and complicated task. Furthermore, artificial life has also affected the ethical perspective of societies. Either way, the moment Dr. Craig Venter made this scientific breakthrough, we have entered a scientific revolution which has and will change the world
However, over time, many of these "scary" new technologies have proven to be good and useful. Even if everyone does not see them as good or useful, those technologies often become a generally accepted part of life upon which people come to depend”(Human Cloning). Most people would get enraged about new technology surfacing, such as cloning. But, they can be known to be helpful and not so bad. Cloning can also eventually be very dependable and acceptable.
Haugen and Susan Musser explores the concepts of the theory of “the Singularity” (Haugen and Musser 1) by Ray Kurzweil. “What is the Singularity…the Singularity is a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so fast and far-reaching that human existence on this planet will be irreversibly altered.” (Haugen and Musser 1). The concept of Singularity is so profound and deep reaching in it’s entirety of a theory, but Kurzweil boils Singularity over the next half a century down to 3 stages, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. He demonstrates how human life, natural adaption, and evolution can coincide with technology and usher in the next wave of humanity possible only through the exponential growth and advancement of technology in significant stages.
Hughes pays particular attention to the development of his introduction because he acknowledges the importance of the audience’s initial reaction to the concept of human enhancements in setting the stage as to how willing they would be in accepting Hughes’ argument. These introductions are effective in generating a sense of pride and awe in “The Human Condition Hurts: We’d Be Fools Not to Better It” and reflection in “The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030” within their audience. Hughes is able to take advantage of these feelings and evoke his readers to view the debate from different mindsets. For example, in the academic journal, enhancement advocates and dissenters become self-aware of the increasing conflict regarding bio-enhancements. In contrast, the readers of the opinion article open their eyes to an issue they’ve either unknowingly dismissed or secretly feared - they’re now more open to the embracing of human enhancements.
Overstepping these boundaries may be construed as inviting unknown and unprecedented risks” (van den Belt 10). The unpredictable consequences of these experiments can be hard to contain. Taking the risks of trying to create new life is not worth it and it crosses a moral line. If the scientist is not prepared to nurture their experiment, the experiment will suffer.
Sylvia Earle, a National Geographic marine biologist, once said, “We have become frighteningly effective at altering nature”. She means that humans have become very good at altering the natural flow of the world, and this has often led to with negative consequences. People have many opinions on the altering of nature. Some argue that an intelligence increasing operation could be of great benefit to society, opening the door to smarter, more advanced citizens and a more advanced society, because they will be able to solve the problems that currently plague the world. However, although the artificial increase of intelligence has some potential benefits, such a procedure would be more harmful than helpful, because of the resulting increased gaps
In Frankenstein, the conflict against morality was that Dr. Victor Frankenstein created a creature that he made from dead body parts from different people. However, there were other problems involving scientists crossing the line between science and morality. During that era, doctors would hire “resurrection men” to rob graves for corpses for dissection. Not only that, but doctors also practiced vivisection, the dissection of live animals. People believed that scientists would do anything for the pursuit of science.
Moor: “Should We Let Computers Get Under Our Skins?” In the argumentative essay, “Should We Let Computers Get Under Our Skins?”, Moor argues that the era of cyborgs-part human and part computer-is coming whether we like it or not, but we should accept a policy of “responsible freedom” along with it. He argues against the thoughts of not allowing cyborgs. He thinks that instead of trying to fight and go against this coming of computer help, we should accept it but be aware of the things that come along with it. We should approach it with having the freedom to be able to decide whether we want computer implants or not, but also by being responsible in knowing the harms that could come with it.
While many such as Hawking, Bilton, and Musk don’t support the development of AI, other scientist argue that it can have great benefits to society. They believe that it will help humans complete tasks faster and more efficiently. They argue that the benefits society will reap from the development of artificial intelligence is greater than the chance that something could go immensely wrong. While they make a compelling argument, they fail to see the big picture. Computers will “learn to do better the task they have been given” says Stephen F. Deangelis, a writer for
The principle of justice demands medical professionals to be fair in their dealing with patients, colleagues and society. For example, health care providers must ensure fair distribution of scarce resources. Reproductive technologies create ethical issues because treatment isn’t available to everyone. Within this context, nonmedical cesarean sections can add more economic burden on already highly stressed medical system. As a result, the issue of cost must always be taken into consideration.
Here, I compare Descartes' demon to Turing'ร test for a talking, intelligent computer. But I argue that whilst Descartes' and Turing's tests incline towards scientifically stable judgements of reality, cybernetics as mediated tìirough the aesthetics of postmodernism proposes a different epistemology. Because the nature of reality is construed as psychologically and discursively constructed, the notion of what is artificial and what is true becomes arbitrary, ideological and subjective. This is particularly so i n relation to Turing's influential conception o f artificial intelligence, for according to Turing success is achieved when a machine is able to deceive a human t r o u g h dissimulatory language. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes considers the prevalence of the false beliefs which he has formerly held.2
We could use the novel, Frankenstein, as an argument against scientific technology that creates life forms or argue that it is not technology itself but the use to which it is put that presents an ethical problem. What is Shelley’s position? What is your position? Are we currently using or abusing nature for our benefit? Can we develop a “symbiotic” relationship with nature?
Based upon the analysis, Parnas’ article is geared more towards people involved in the field of Artificial Intelligence where Eldridge’s article is geared towards people who are not necessarily knowledgeable about Artificial Intelligence yet are interested to learn more about the topic. Throughout the article, Parnas maintains the skeptical attitude towards Artificial Intelligence, literally ending with “Devices that use heuristics to create the illusion of Intelligence present a risk we should not accept” (Parnas, 6). Eldridge on the other hand, maintains a positive attitude throughout the article despite the shortcomings of AI. Together, both authors provide compelling arguments for and against Artificial
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The idea of human cloning is becoming a reality and it is no longer mere science fiction. As this idea turns into reality, it is leaving many people horrified, but it’s helping scientists find cures for many diseases. Although human cloning can create a new doorway for scientists, it has dangerous implications to humans and nature. Although human cloning has dangerous implications to humans and nature, adverse opinions exist.
We’ve always yearned to see the day clones would roam the earth as we do. That day has now come. I will be explaining to day the reasons why cloning can help the earth, the process of cloning, what has been experiments have been made for cloning, and how this will benefit the world. Scientists have been working on cloning and the concept of cloning for along time and have been successful. But many people in the world believe that life shouldn’t be made by the hands of a scientist but more of a superior being such as God or Mother Nature.
Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Literature Review The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, authored by Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky, as a draft for the Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, introduces five (5) topics of discussion in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ethics, including, short term AI ethical issues, AI safety challenges, moral status of AI, how to conduct ethical assessment of AI, and super-intelligent Artificial Intelligence issues or, what happens when AI becomes much more intelligent than humans, but without ethical constraints? This topic of ethics and morality within AI is of particular interest for me as I will be working with machine learning, mathematical modeling, and computer simulations for my upcoming summer internship at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) in Norco, California. After I complete my Master Degree in 2020 at Northeastern University, I will become a full time research engineer working at this navy laboratory. At the suggestion of my NSWC mentor, I have opted to concentrate my master’s degree in Computer Vision, Machine Learning, and Algorithm Development, technologies which are all strongly associated with AI. Nick Bostrom, one of the authors on this article, is Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University and the Director at the Future of Humanity Institute within the Oxford Martin School.