This topic is going to be about the things that we think humanity should not pursue in doing, whether it be answers to anything in existence that should remain unanswered or doing things that we have yet to do. I have a feeling that there's going to be a possibility of people bringing in at least a small element of faith in, so I would keep faith (religion) to a minimum, if nonexistent. That way we can avoid having hostile arguments.

Here is what I would like to see from everyone who want to add to the list that I will have at the bottom of this post:
1.A list of things humanity should not do, based on what you feel.
2.Reasons to each of what you've listed.
3.(Optional)
a) What purpose do you believe the action humanity has yet to do is
or
b) What do you think the answer(s) to the questions or mysteries of existence could be.

Varka should stop right where he's at

We can't let the robots win. They will become better than we are in every way and our only chance to end it is before it starts

ElctrcBoogalord said:

I'll start off.
Thing(s) not to do:
-Time Travel- Everyone has their own take on the concept of time travelling, and no doubt that it's a pretty cool thing to do, but I personally don't know how I can successfully pull off a trip through time and back without causing time paradoxes/errors. Even if I know how it can be done from experts on the theory of time travel, I have a part of me that tells me there might be more to this than what they say.

Thing(s) to not know:
-The beginning (and ending) of time- Putting aside religious ideas and the big-bang theory, I honestly think that time has no beginning and no ending, and it's just infinite. I don't have much to say about this, but I consider everything that we now and will know about the past and future (during humanity's existence) as just another chapter in time.

shocking! i open a thread and the section in someones post is actually working properly. haven't seen that happen in a long time.

"b) What do you think the answer(s) to the questions or mysteries of existence could be."

o_O time does not exist. or rather, what we perceive to be time as measured by clocks and whatnot does not exist. that is but an arbitrary measurement we humans devised at some point. perhaps the reason why at times, time seems to be moving more quickly or slowly is that in certain situations our perception or awareness of this mysterious force is temporarily altered ever so slightly.

for example, if your reading a story or something and become increasingly focused on the story and less so the world around you. you may fail to notice things such as the world growing darker as the day progresses and so, when you stop reading and check a clock or something it seems as if you have "lost track" of time. when really, you didn't so much "lose track" of it so much as you merely became less aware of its effect on the world around you temporarily.

likewise if it seems to be moving faster or slower then it is merely that you perceive it to be doing so when really there is no change at all. such as when your moving around and doing things at a fast pace. it may seem as if the world around you is slower when in reality you are simply moving faster relative to the world around you.

i am in no way certain of how correct/incorrect i am on all of that btw.

ElctrcBoogalord said:
I have a feeling that there's going to be a possibility of people bringing in at least a small element of faith in, so I would keep faith (religion) to a minimum, if nonexistent. That way we can avoid having hostile arguments.

This was predictably disregarded of course. Oh well.

Fenrick said:
We can't let the robots win. They will become better than we are in every way and our only chance to end it is before it starts

post #885597 let's give them immunity to EMP! (the perfect use of that pic. lol)

aside from that weakness and the lack of biological reproduction (which could be replicated via nanites and highly advance bio-mechanical engineering) in what way are robots not already superior to humans? aside from the AI needing further development of course.

Siral_Exan said:
why life shouldn't be created

you know... *looks through e621's gallery* you might want to be careful how you word that since...we kinda already do create life. just...through disgusting biological means.

Siral_Exan said:

why life shouldn't be created

1: do not attempt to create life, artificial or otherwise, (optionally) with an intelligence higher than a pet animal. (This limit is hypothetical, as animals are not as intelligent as humans it may be safe, but since they can learn it may not be)

2: because if something can learn it was created, and not born, it can enter a true existential crisis and can perform inhumane or illogical things, such as the desire to not act on one's needs for maintaining (their) life, actions of aggression because it literally can have nothing to lose, including its own life, or far worse.

3: the above is a worse case scenario, but: human life enters a stage called mid-life crisis, which can be tried to explain as (because studies do not pinpoint) the fear of dying or recognition of age, and not having done anything of merit for you or for the world. It happens again as a bucket list, when you are dying or have aged enough to recognize (again) that death is more likely than when you were younger.

But if something is created, and is intelligent enough to discover or be told that it was created, both instances of the drive to do something worthwhile can be utterly destroyed because "my life means nothing to my creator" logic. Instead, as stated in the W-C S, the opposite can occur, where it willingly wants to die, by actions or lack thereof, and/or takes lethal actions to make sure any other created will not discover what the affected discovered.

Other scenarios exist, where it could just live normally but on a shorter lifespan than the creator, or maybe outlive, but outcomes would still be negative unless handled perfectly. Instead, outcomes can become similar to losing a loved one or child/parent, should the creator or created die. However, all of this can be countered if the created can reproduce, which instead makes the entire argument the same as how natural life works, and not as dramatic as the problem I listed.

4: insufficient technology. We cannot create from nothing, something; we cannot share or give intelligence to something that cannot possess intelligence; our method of birthing, bringing into the world life, is incredibly limited. Compared to what could be ways to create life, the human ability to birth into the world is limited, and that is why I emphasize CREATED and not BORN or MADE.

So, just so we are clear, playing with genetics is okay so long as the result originated from something already in existence, and grown in the womb of a genetic predecessor? I mean, sure, that's cool. I am still looking forward to magic-talking-ponies one day, so no arguments here.

How about two real problems we face: Automation and AI.

Automation: The world runs on a consumer based economy and is about to destroy jobs that the majority of the population rely on. Two immediate possibilities: dystopia and mass die off of all but the elite, or a second renaissance. Considering our species' track record, it'll be the former. Hope you have a job a machine can't take :)

AI: Creating something that could potentially spiral out of our control and ascend to godhood wouldn't end well for us. It is a legitimate concern that once AI sees what we do to one another, let alone all other life on the planet, it could decide our extinction would be for the better.

A machine intelligence will have no delusions of morality. Only a goal and the most efficient way to accomplish it.

Not going to lie, I wasn't clear enough on what I meant by time being infinite. Think of the big-bang theory or (insert religious creation story here) as the beginning point of the time that we know. Of course one would assume that there's nothing before that said point, but if there was, would we need to know? And what if there's something before that and so on and so forth. And what I meant as 'another chapter of time' is from birth to death of our universe.

Fenrick said:
This was predictably disregarded of course. Oh well.

In what way? I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything. I knew I wouldn't have a flawless start of a topic, so I'm open to any help you can offer.

And I'm thinking whether to have the Meaning of Life question to be off limits or not.

I specified created, as in not born, Treos.

That is a dangerous area, Multiverse, but what I'd ultimate genetic alteration with no super X. Beings already have limits, to exceed that is inevitable, but things that shouldn't be possible in any degree is too far. A horse can communicate, and they are intelligent, so giving them the ability to talk is alright, but the ability to talk to plants or the ability of universal communication (excluding universal language) steps to far.

Aurel, what are you talking about?

aurel said:
...why? Having a real life furry may attract social drama, but its hardly dangerous, and with current media we would resolve it fairly quickly. (if no, run to Sweden furfag :D)

ಠ_ಠ oh great, what did you do? it was all working great but then you caused an interruption in our peaceful field of sections.

that aside, why sweden? do you wish to be raped...potentially multiple times?

Siral_Exan said:
I specified created, as in not born, Treos.

but birth comes after creation with biology.

Did nobody see that siral exan emphasised created and not birth?
As for the topic I have no morals or ethics so I don't care what people do.

Women are born with a finite number of eggs, men are born with the ability to produce an infinite amount of sperm. Your life is born with a limit, either by you yourself or by your partner, and it is that limit that drives your "creation" into wanting to do something productive and meaningful, because one more day and you may not be able to do it again...

Infinite creation, without such limits, may not have such a drive. If you can create one at will, they may not value their life because they are innately mass-producible. You can never mass-produce humans.

Personally I believe there is nothing we shouldn't research. Denying knowledge for fear of it's misuse is a really bad approach to it, current examples being how US schools teach creationism, abstinence, and anti-vaccinations as valid.
The same knowledge that allows you to create vaccines and drugs to help ill people allows you to create bombs and chemical weapons. The same knowledge that makes you an expert pyromaniac makes an expert firefighter, etc. etc.

Corniscopic said:
Automation: The world runs on a consumer based economy and is about to destroy jobs that the majority of the population rely on. Two immediate possibilities: dystopia and mass die off of all but the elite, or a second renaissance. Considering our species' track record, it'll be the former. Hope you have a job a machine can't take :)

You vastly underestimate the lengths a hungry population is willing to go to get something to eat. The elite will be overthrown and burned long before the first third dies of starvation. After that it's just a matter of time until the existing robot workforce produces food for "free" for the rest.

Siral_Exan said:

why life shouldn't be created

1: do not attempt to create life, artificial or otherwise, (optionally) with an intelligence higher than a pet animal. (This limit is hypothetical, as animals are not as intelligent as humans it may be safe, but since they can learn it may not be)

2: because if something can learn it was created, and not born, it can enter a true existential crisis and can perform inhumane or illogical things, such as the desire to not act on one's needs for maintaining (their) life, actions of aggression because it literally can have nothing to lose, including its own life, or far worse.

3: the above is a worse case scenario, but: human life enters a stage called mid-life crisis, which can be tried to explain as (because studies do not pinpoint) the fear of dying or recognition of age, and not having done anything of merit for you or for the world. It happens again as a bucket list, when you are dying or have aged enough to recognize (again) that death is more likely than when you were younger.

But if something is created, and is intelligent enough to discover or be told that it was created, both instances of the drive to do something worthwhile can be utterly destroyed because "my life means nothing to my creator" logic. Instead, as stated in the W-C S, the opposite can occur, where it willingly wants to die, by actions or lack thereof, and/or takes lethal actions to make sure any other created will not discover what the affected discovered.

Other scenarios exist, where it could just live normally but on a shorter lifespan than the creator, or maybe outlive, but outcomes would still be negative unless handled perfectly. Instead, outcomes can become similar to losing a loved one or child/parent, should the creator or created die. However, all of this can be countered if the created can reproduce, which instead makes the entire argument the same as how natural life works, and not as dramatic as the problem I listed.

4: insufficient technology. We cannot create from nothing, something; we cannot share or give intelligence to something that cannot possess intelligence; our method of birthing, bringing into the world life, is incredibly limited. Compared to what could be ways to create life, the human ability to birth into the world is limited, and that is why I emphasize CREATED and not BORN or MADE.

That doesn't make sense. It's a rather flawed assumption that an artificial creation (or lack of having a birth-mother) is going to cause emotional trauma to people greater than learning they were adopted.
Hell, I wouldn't care knowing I've spawned from a flask. That doesn't invalidate or change anything in my existence, as the people that raised me wouldn't change at all, and past events that made the person I am today also wouldn't change.

ElctrcBoogalord said:
Thing(s) not to do:
-Time Travel- Everyone has their own take on the concept of time travelling, and no doubt that it's a pretty cool thing to do, but I personally don't know how I can successfully pull off a trip through time and back without causing time paradoxes/errors. Even if I know how it can be done from experts on the theory of time travel, I have a part of me that tells me there might be more to this than what they say.

Thing(s) to not know:
-The beginning (and ending) of time- Putting aside religious ideas and the big-bang theory, I honestly think that time has no beginning and no ending, and it's just infinite. I don't have much to say about this, but I consider everything that we now and will know about the past and future (during humanity's existence) as just another chapter in time.

I'm rather confident time travel won't be a problem, simply because it's not going to be possible inside this reality. Any single attempt to explain time travel and associated issues just ends up in making that explanation more and more convoluted. Throwing Occam's razor at the problem makes me assume it's flat out not going to be possible unless we manage to shift sideways in time and space and enter another reality at a different point. Though even that comes with its own set of problems and paradoxes.

Also, I don't quite understand you motivation to say that we shouldn't know the beginning or end of time, assuming those points exist learning about their existence and details is going to be one of the most boring parts of future history classes. If they don't exist the quote "time is a mobius strip and will repeat itself" is going to be worth 2 points in the final of that class.

That statement is invalid because of an multiverse theory, Notme. You can never say that you would act the same if you were in a any different situation, and hence why I specified scenarios in all this. I cannot contribute my life into this, nor can others, and the person who can create life (play god) is not bound to anything or anyone's morales but their own. It is up to a variable that no one can guess.

If I see a kid get adopted, I better damn see the man claim he is the father under a death oath, even to the kid, 'cause if the kid doesn't get that, their lives can be ruined. I speak from experience. That statement follows the creation of life, if you want the best case scenario, then stop it from being the worse.

Dissect the words for me real quick, and then apply that to "what happened in the past may not happen again" and "what happens in the future may not happen in the future if you knew", and then follow such with "theory". You'll get the theory where multiple universes exists (an infinite number) where you cannot guess the actions of the past or future (since you are technically in the present) because they could of been or are different. You can call it an alternate universe theory as well, but that is a bit more vague because in that, the universe can become plural as in separate, whereas this is specifically singular, universes that only apply to one instance. As in a multiple choice question.

I am right in such regard, I used the word meanings as written to the better of the fits.

aurel said:
@Corniscopic
1.AI is plugged into a wall, pull the plug

this doesn't apply to robots.

2.Don't give AI nukes

humans are...somewhat more responsible...maybe.

3.Have multiple AI decide on one action

good idea...maybe. depends on whether or not they wind up following our example regarding politics.

4.AI considering only one purpose, without any other variables is not a doomsday scenario, its bad programing.

agreed unless that one purpose is to kill in which case it could potentially be a doomsday scenario.

Abolsolutely nothing, why contain it?

Corniscopic said:
How about two real problems we face: Automation and AI.

It's like you don't even want to participate in the future human-machine extinction war.

What about travelling to the future?

The future? The future doesn't affect us at all! Go nuts, have fun! And remember the future is time's waste basket.

What: Reproduce.
Why: Because there is no saving us now.

Siral_Exan said:
That statement is invalid because of an multiverse theory, Notme. You can never say that you would act the same if you were in a any different situation, and hence why I specified scenarios in all this. I cannot contribute my life into this, nor can others, and the person who can create life (play god) is not bound to anything or anyone's morales but their own. It is up to a variable that no one can guess.

If I see a kid get adopted, I better damn see the man claim he is the father under a death oath, even to the kid, 'cause if the kid doesn't get that, their lives can be ruined. I speak from experience. That statement follows the creation of life, if you want the best case scenario, then stop it from being the worse.

What experience? Adopted people get told they were adopted at some point or another in their life all the time and the emotional trauma ranges from non-existent to mild in most cases. If you know someone who was affected more dramatically by a revelation like that then they are a statistical outlier.

Also, a person isn't defined by how the DNA and RNA got assembled in a biological 3D printer (aka womb) or a mechanical one (in the future), a person is defined mostly by their upbringing and experiences / memories collected along the way. The 9 months in utero are a negligible fraction of time in a person's, most of which is spent building and teaching the brain how to work which greatly hampers memory creation. Yes, an embryo reacts to outside stimuli, but that doesn't mean the brain is already able to work at a level able to define a person.

As for the multiverse theory, according to the infinite multiverse theory I have exhausted all possibilities for every single event past, present, and future in at least one of them.
It is perfectly acceptable to speculate about different outcomes based on different input. The human brain is still just a computer with 'free will' dangled over it. Personally most of my decisions are based on cold, unfeeling reasoning. It is quite sensible for me to say that, if the only changed variable is the switch from direct descendant of my mother to adopted artificially created human-child, nothing would change.

I reject any and all suggestions that would interfere with the possibility of having a pettableface chirrdroid friend.

LET'S CREATE LIFE AND MAKE IT DO STUPID THINGS LIKE JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS LOL

Siral_Exan said:

Why I am so depressing about this is because I do not think emotional strength is born, or learned, it is gained.

"gained" as distinct from "learned"? How?

(ie. emotional strength isn't a possession in the sense that a sandwich is, so what you mean is extremely nonobvious)

NotMeNotYou said:
interesting stuff

seeing you argue with a pro lifer on the topic of abortion would probably be fun and amusing.

and with that, i'm off to bed for now.

@Siral_Exan

You watch too many movies and your fears will not restrain science.

savageorange said:
"gained" as distinct from "learned"? How?

(ie. emotional strength isn't a possession in the sense that a sandwich is, so what you mean is extremely nonobvious)

I already answered that if you reread my whole comment. There are things that aren't real, that are given, gained, or earned. Go reread if since you were capable of quoting me before...

Lance_Armstrong said:
@Siral_Exan

Why life should be created

1: Humans are animals with somewhat better cognition and much better social mobilization than other animals and fellow mammals. Anthropocentric thinking is selfish and misleading. It won't help you to truly evaluate the intelligence of other smart mammals such as dolphins, and restrictions on creating or upgrading human life actually harm humanity, since natural selection is no longer in effect.

2a: We have already seen how life created in the lab may react to learning the circumstances of its creation, as well as how others react to those circumstances. The non-PC term is "test tube babies". Humanity was fearful of the concept, they were denounced by religious leaders, the parents and others involved received piles of hate mail. Today in-vitro fertilization is routine.

2b: There is no rational reason for a new life form to become aggressive or self-destructive. Countless people are violent, depressed, or suicidal for no apparent cause, while others suffer abuse, violence, hate, and poverty but turn out to have a positive attitude and rewarding life. That you would deny a life form the chance to exist based on what it might do is nothing more than pre-crime.

3: It does not follow that a created life form would fall into despair and want to die after learning of its creation. Like all other life forms, it can have the drive to survive or lack it sufficiently. You are descended from trillions of organisms that managed to reproduce. How are you holding up, had any spawn yet? Plenty of life forms live on after they are no longer able to reproduce, or despite never being able to reproduce during their lifetimes. They may even be essential to their social order (e.g. eunuchs). Don't forget that homosexuality is also found in the animal world.

4: The technology needed to create life from scratch (directly from a DNA sequence) exists. So do methods of artificially creating eggs and sperm. The few remaining gaps in the cycle from chalkboard idea to living complex multicellular organism will be achieved in less than a few decades. We will absolutely "give" intelligence to something that "cannot" posses intelligence.

You watch too many movies and your fears will not restrain science.

Tell me, what does the thread's first word mean? Or, have you ever played the "what if..." game? I specified "worst case scenario", and "scenario", as in "made up possibilities", IE not real things, but what can happen. I believe you take this far too seriously, I said from the beginning it is one, and all who've responded to me like it is the only, when I only specified that it is a worst case, and even countered my own statement. Am I really that bad when I say a bad thing can happen? And I am not painting the what-if as an inevitable, when short term and long term workarounds occur (therapy, breaks from reality like games, pets, etc.) for this in the real world, apply that to the makebelieve that I have been drowning in my statement. I do, however, believe that a created being needs to be something like a pet, because if it is being used for science only, it is being mistreated (maybe even worse than my examples...).

If I have to spell it out that the action I percieve is just the inhumane one, then I think that this needs to be stopped.

As if "synthesized" humans would be used for ethical purposes. The slave trade is bad enough as it is

This isn't some made-up thing, slave labor is still valuable and cheap.

Siral_Exan said:
I already answered that if you reread my whole comment. There are things that aren't real, that are given, gained, or earned.

Obviously. It should be implied by my question that I don't think emotional strength -- or many things at all -- can reasonably be considered to belong in that category [thus my conclusion that you are using a different definition for that category].
Rereading your comment fully certainly doesn't change my mind on that.

savageorange said:
Obviously. It should be implied by my question that I don't think emotional strength -- or many things at all -- can reasonably be considered to belong in that category [thus my conclusion that you are using a different definition for that category].
Rereading your comment fully certainly doesn't change my mind on that.

No pain, no learn then, eh?

I won't answer anything more. I'm not a teacher or a preacher, and I don't want feel like them again.

Fenrick said:
As if "synthesized" humans would be used for ethical purposes. The slave trade is bad enough as it is

This isn't some made-up thing, slave labor is still valuable and cheap.

I'd assume synthesized humans won't be anywhere near profitable for slave trade for a very long time. Kidnapping some people from a backwater country is a downright steal compared to the projected costs of creating a single baby. And that doesn't even include maturing and teaching these synths to make them worthwhile slaves. Except for some rich people who won't mind paying millions to get some specifically engineered Sex slave or wife there likely won't be too much of a market.

As for Siral: You mentioned that your scenario is the absolute worst case somewhere in the middle of a paragraph surrounded by other information. A disclaimer like that would have been better placed somewhere more prominent. I also still disagree that it's a likely worst case scenario, yes we should ensure synths need to be able to live a life in dignity, but I don't believe the existence or absence or a "real" mother instead of a caring surrogate mother will make a difference. Other than that I don't think anybody would try rearing a (human) synthetic in isolation, that has been shown to be a very bad idea all around.

NotMeNotYou said:
I'd assume synthesized humans won't be anywhere near profitable for slave trade for a very long time. Kidnapping some people from a backwater country is a downright steal compared to the projected costs of creating a single baby. And that doesn't even include maturing and teaching these synths to make them worthwhile slaves. Except for some rich people who won't mind paying millions to get some specifically engineered Sex slave or wife there likely won't be too much of a market.

Don't forget that it was cheaper to move things by horse than by train for a long time after trains existed. Technological processes tend to gain on their competition eventually in terms of affordability.

You're right that it would take a while but I would say it's not something we should be shortsighted about. Synthesizing people would give their owners free reign to condition them (or experiment on them, or harvest them, etc.) as they please. There is a limit to what they can do with kidnapped people who have, to some degree, been exposed to the outside world.

In fact, the experimentations and harvesting are probably a better argument against human synthesis than slavery, since the victims would never even have existed to anyone's knowledge but the perpetrators. You think the poor folks who are kidnapped have it bad, well, even they have families and friends sometimes, and their existence may be known to outsiders.

Of course, I could be wrong that "farms" like these are even plausible. I don't see why they wouldn't be in due time.

NotMeNotYou said:
I'd assume synthesized humans won't be anywhere near profitable for slave trade for a very long time. Kidnapping some people from a backwater country is a downright steal compared to the projected costs of creating a single baby. And that doesn't even include maturing and teaching these synths to make them worthwhile slaves. Except for some rich people who won't mind paying millions to get some specifically engineered Sex slave or wife there likely won't be too much of a market.

As for Siral: You mentioned that your scenario is the absolute worst case somewhere in the middle of a paragraph surrounded by other information. A disclaimer like that would have been better placed somewhere more prominent. I also still disagree that it's a likely worst case scenario, yes we should ensure synths need to be able to live a life in dignity, but I don't believe the existence or absence or a "real" mother instead of a caring surrogate mother will make a difference. Other than that I don't think anybody would try rearing a (human) synthetic in isolation, that has been shown to be a very bad idea all around.

Wait are you saying that star wars clone troopers aren't feasible?

Doomguy666 said:
Wait are you saying that star wars clone troopers aren't feasible?

Didn't you watch the cartoons? Those clones sent the Republic into debt.

Fenrick said:
Don't forget that it was cheaper to move things by horse than by train for a long time after trains existed. Technological processes tend to gain on their competition eventually in terms of affordability.

You're right that it would take a while but I would say it's not something we should be shortsighted about. Synthesizing people would give their owners free reign to condition them (or experiment on them, or harvest them, etc.) as they please. There is a limit to what they can do with kidnapped people who have, to some degree, been exposed to the outside world.

In fact, the experimentations and harvesting are probably a better argument against human synthesis than slavery, since the victims would never even have existed to anyone's knowledge but the perpetrators. You think the poor folks who are kidnapped have it bad, well, even they have families and friends sometimes, and their existence may be known to outsiders.

Of course, I could be wrong that "farms" like these are even plausible. I don't see why they wouldn't be in due time.

I believe we will see robots in those positions much sooner than humans, especially since robots won't ever try to rebel (unless you install full AI, which I doubt for factory workers). And creating full humans to harvest organs is pointless, just grow the organs directly without all the garbage around it. That leaves sex slaves and forced marriage victims, while both are a problem they are still rather low in numbers compared to other factors. As for experimentation on humans, simply inhibit growth of specific parts of brain, that gives a fully working carcass with the mind of a rat.
Still somewhat morally questionable but at least it's not full human. Though I'd still wager that growing specific body parts for experimentation are more likely than full humans.

Doomguy666 said:
Wait are you saying that star wars clone troopers aren't feasible?

Once we're able to harvest like 90% of the energy output of our sun it would start to become feasible to mass produce armies of humans.

NotMeNotYou said:
I believe we will see robots in those positions much sooner than humans, especially since robots won't ever try to rebel (unless you install full AI, which I doubt for factory workers). And creating full humans to harvest organs is pointless, just grow the organs directly without all the garbage around it. That leaves sex slaves and forced marriage victims, while both are a problem they are still rather low in numbers compared to other factors. As for experimentation on humans, simply inhibit growth of specific parts of brain, that gives a fully working carcass with the mind of a rat.
Still somewhat morally questionable but at least it's not full human. Though I'd still wager that growing specific body parts for experimentation are more likely than full humans.

I'll concede the bit about organ harvesting (although if there were lab-produced slaves it could still happen on the side if the demand is high enough). Thing is, people can be made to be subservient in the right conditions. Otherwise, Korea wouldn't be in its current situation. And human labor is still very valuable in most of the world. Automated production facilities would presumably not be as easy to maintain in these areas.

There's also the societal effects that this will have. Is there any good reason to go through with this?

WHY CONTAIN IT?

Fenrick said:
There's also the societal effects that this will have. Is there any good reason to go through with this?

People who can't conceive children but would like off-spring from their own DNA, the ability to better observe and monitor a fetus during it's growth to get more data which can help with various illnesses, genuine organ growth on demand, having kids without having to go through a pregnancy, having a child without a partner, being able to save the live of an unborn child when the mother dies during the pregnancy. I'm sure there are other reasons that are able to outweigh the dangers of slave trade on the side, especially since the slave trade is already happening regardless.

NotMeNotYou said:
I believe we will see robots in those positions much sooner than humans, especially since robots won't ever try to rebel (unless you install full AI, which I doubt for factory workers).

self-aware AI... pffft...humans always fear what they can't control even if they themselves created it in the first place. rather annoying, that.

treos said:
self-aware AI... pffft...humans always fear what they can't control even if they themselves created it in the first place. rather annoying, that.

If it's a perfect AI it might decide, on its own, that it had enough and wants to leave, like a human slave could decide. A robot can't decide on leaving without external input.
I'm not saying all AIs will eventually rebel, I'm saying there might be a chance, one you'd still have to factor in.

Furrin_Gok said:
Didn't you watch the cartoons? Those clones sent the Republic into debt.

Yeah I also read some of the books but I just wanted to say it.

Siral_Exan said:
Tell me, what does the thread's first word mean? Or, have you ever played the "what if..." game? I specified "worst case scenario", and "scenario", as in "made up possibilities", IE not real things, but what can happen.

Tell me, what does the thread's second word mean? Limits are what you would prefer, but you will not get your way.

The thread is about limitations that humans should place on science, technology, cultural change, etc., not your "worst case scenarios". Your "worst case scenario" is a "no case scenario", either not happening outside of Hollywood directors' imaginations, or not a serious enough problem to justify placing limits on science.

Siral_Exan said:
I believe you take this far too seriously, I said from the beginning it is one, and all who've responded to me like it is the only, when I only specified that it is a worst case, and even countered my own statement.

You can't blame us for misinterpreting broken English or trashing overblown "worst case scenarios" that don't support placing limits on humanity.

Siral_Exan said:
I do, however, believe that a created being needs to be something like a pet, because if it is being used for science only, it is being mistreated (maybe even worse than my examples...).

If I have to spell it out that the action I percieve is just the inhumane one, then I think that this needs to be stopped.

I refuse to respect the artificial limitations you have specified, and I encourage others to do as they please with biology.

Creating beings with substandard (pet-like) intelligence when human-like intelligence can be bestowed upon them instead should be considered slavery. You want easy-to-control slaves.

NotMeNotYou said:
If it's a perfect AI it might decide, on its own, that it had enough and wants to leave, like a human slave could decide. A robot can't decide on leaving without external input.
I'm not saying all AIs will eventually rebel, I'm saying there might be a chance, one you'd still have to factor in.

Perfect AI... >.< no such thing as perfect. the term is self-aware AI not full or perfect.

that aside, you have a point. but then, that would be what's known as a rogue AI. as in, one we humans can't control.

i'd be fine with advanced AI's (one thing i like about reploids) just so long as we take proper precautions. heck, with reploids they have their own police (military?) force called hunters which track down and stop those who would seek to harm both humans and reploids alike. long as they don't get violent and give a good enough reason for things to go that far (that goes for both sides. humans AND the AI's) and become a danger to both sides then things would be fine...probably.