You need to think about what the purpose of "rights" are and why we have them.
You could argue that rights were first granted to human factory workers because they guaranteed workers could not be over-worked thus maximising their productivity (you can't work effectively if you suffer sleep deprivation). Those rights weren't altruistic as they weren't for the benefit of the workers but for the benefit of the factory owners.
I could foresee rights being given to machines in the same way; if doing so maximised their productivity. But in that case you've got to factor in that machines can't be "unhappy" with their operator, their "employer" like humans can. They're workhorses who follow out their instructions without judgement over why or for what personal reward and for the foreseeable future that is all they will ever be. They are selfless by nature, without even a notion of the "self" as "living creatures" think of it.
A machine can't refuse to work if it feels its labour is being abused or its talent wasted in the same way human workers once did to first gain workers rights. Granted it can break down if it over-heats, but people who operate machinery know this and realise it is in their own best interests not to let that happen. Giving machines "rights" isn't needed for that to happen, those rights to a "productive working environment" evolved as a result of the system without a need for government intervention. Granted they're not legal and constitutional rights - they're not rights as we think of rights, but then again machines aren't alive as we think of life - but for all intents and purposes they are rights and machines already have them, albeit in a down-graded form.
As a separate point, machines don't have leverage over the government. They can't withdraw their labour and go on strike if they're not awarded rights, they can't vote into power a political party based on the promise to award them rights. Even if they ever truly deserved rights they would never receive them because only a government can award rights and no government would benefit from doing so (presuming all governments act in self-interest, which is a pretty safe assumption. But that's for another rant). Corporations would bribe parties with donations to stop them awarding rights to their non-organic employees.
Machines will not receive constitutional and legal rights as organic lifeforms do, at least for the foreseeable future of how technology will progress. After that, who's to know?
EDIT: Apologies for the wall of text, I was a little tipsy when I wrote it.
IIN to wonder if machines will ever be given rights?
← View full post
You need to think about what the purpose of "rights" are and why we have them.
You could argue that rights were first granted to human factory workers because they guaranteed workers could not be over-worked thus maximising their productivity (you can't work effectively if you suffer sleep deprivation). Those rights weren't altruistic as they weren't for the benefit of the workers but for the benefit of the factory owners.
I could foresee rights being given to machines in the same way; if doing so maximised their productivity. But in that case you've got to factor in that machines can't be "unhappy" with their operator, their "employer" like humans can. They're workhorses who follow out their instructions without judgement over why or for what personal reward and for the foreseeable future that is all they will ever be. They are selfless by nature, without even a notion of the "self" as "living creatures" think of it.
A machine can't refuse to work if it feels its labour is being abused or its talent wasted in the same way human workers once did to first gain workers rights. Granted it can break down if it over-heats, but people who operate machinery know this and realise it is in their own best interests not to let that happen. Giving machines "rights" isn't needed for that to happen, those rights to a "productive working environment" evolved as a result of the system without a need for government intervention. Granted they're not legal and constitutional rights - they're not rights as we think of rights, but then again machines aren't alive as we think of life - but for all intents and purposes they are rights and machines already have them, albeit in a down-graded form.
As a separate point, machines don't have leverage over the government. They can't withdraw their labour and go on strike if they're not awarded rights, they can't vote into power a political party based on the promise to award them rights. Even if they ever truly deserved rights they would never receive them because only a government can award rights and no government would benefit from doing so (presuming all governments act in self-interest, which is a pretty safe assumption. But that's for another rant). Corporations would bribe parties with donations to stop them awarding rights to their non-organic employees.
Machines will not receive constitutional and legal rights as organic lifeforms do, at least for the foreseeable future of how technology will progress. After that, who's to know?
EDIT: Apologies for the wall of text, I was a little tipsy when I wrote it.