Re: sentient rights (was RE: Battleground God)

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 09:01:07 MST

Richard Steven Hack wrote:
> At 11:06 AM 2/21/02 +1030, you wrote:
> > Thus with respect
> >to beings with below human levels of intelligence, which are otherwise
> >rather similar to us (eg: mammals), it is difficult to see where lines could
> >rightly be drawn to grant us rights but deny the same to them. After all, in
> >a context where we are talking about becoming SIs, etc, the difference
> >between a human and, say, a dog, is negligable.

Whether there is a discernable difference to an SI or not is irrelevant.
However, your assumtion on this point is flawed. If an SI is so
super-intelligent, it should be able to discern MORE difference between
human and dog than humans and dogs can.

> Simple. Human do not have rights - and therefore animals have none as
> well. I find rights to be a redundant and effectively useless
> concept. The human race exists in Darwinian competition with itself and
> all other species. Within itself, this need not be the case, but because
> of human stupidity, ignorance, irrationality, maliciousness and fear -
> characteristics I find more defining of the species than Ayn Rand's
> "rationality" - they have in fact made this the case. A Transhumanist
> should accept this and act accordingly. Do not rely on social fictions to
> protect you or anything else.

Thus illustrating the primary divide between extropians and

Rights are not social fictions, they are codified expressions of
objective observation of natural, physical law. TO think otherwise is
the height of irrationality.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST