> Here is a likely contravercial matter. With the coming decade of genetics we
> will then have the ability to utilize our DNA and manipulate it to create a
> race of humanoid drones which we could use for labor but there would be
> little to no grey matter in the skull cavity, they would be strictly drones.
> This then brings up the two contravercial topics of whether we should toy
> with DNA. I say yes, we should. And the other contravercy deals with
> slavery. Now, it would look bad today if this race was considered enslaved
> rather than created. The brain defines human but most people don't recognize
> that fact because they still live their lives shrouded in mysticism and
> irrationality thinking this humanoid drone has a metaphysical soul. So
> should we create a race of humanoid drones for labor? It would be easy
> enough and practical.
>
>
What could a creature "with little or no grey matter" do that a machine
or AI could not do faster and cheaper? It appears to me that the only
reason to build any tool is to get the job done quicker, cheaper and more
thouroughly than the old tool. Why assign tasks to a new tool that is
inferior to the one it replaces. By the time a race of humaniod drones
hit the market, AI should already have a considerable marketshare of
brainless labor. , Machines already out perform humans, horses and oxen
at many brainless tasks, and better machines will(be able) to out perform
them in the remaining drudgeries.
A big question is how much will it cost to maintain a drone work force.
I'm sure that genetic engineers could make more efficient organisms than
those currently available, but they'll still need food and waste
removal. Who will provide the mindless service of feeding and clean up
after the drones-- machines, humans, or more drones?
Moral Question: How is bulding an race of drones in a laboratory for
labor different from just building designer humans to perform those same
tasks? Would these humans be created or enslaved?
Michael Bowling
mlbowli1@cord.iupui.edu