Uplift - helping out other species

[Bluenose]

I debated whether to put this in the Science forum, but in the end I feel that the interesting question is a moral one, so I have put this here.

Those who have read the books of science fiction author David Brin will be familiar with the term uplift, but for those who have not, it is a term David Brin uses in a number of his novel to describe a process whereby a sentient species (ie humans - well most of the time, anyway) raises a pre-sentient species to full sapience.  this might be done through direct genetic engineering and selective breeding or whatever.

Now I am not trying to debate the technical issues of how this may be done.  For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to suggest that let us take it for granted that at some time in the future we will be in a position to 'raise' another species to full sentience.  Obvious candidates would be chimpanzees and bonobos and perhaps dolphins and gorillas.  other species might also be possible.

Anyway, the interesting question for me is this - should we do it?  Do we in fact, if we have the capability, have an obligation to do it?  I wonder whether in some distant future time we might not be judged by just how much we could have done, but did not, for our fellow denizens of this lovely planet.

Sibling Bluenose

[ivor]

That question kind of reminds me of the original Planet of the Apes.

Beware the beast "man", for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death.

Did anybody else see the show on the ape that was taught sign language?  I thought that was facinating.  Here is a website for her.  That is sort of what you are talking about right?

MB

[goat starer]

raising creatures to sentience implies that they are not already which I would strongly dispute.

In the case of dogs thate can be terrible consequences

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I would say that it would depend on what and how other humans react and treat the newly uplifted neo-animals. 

The Planet of the Apes series paints a dark picture of exploitation by humans of their newly "smartened" ape cousins.  Literature like this should serve as a warning, I think.

On the other hand, primate brain development is so plastic and dependent on the environment for much of it's development, that I often wonder how few generations it would take, if we gave other primates speech first. Obviously, we'd either need to tinker with their genetics to modify their throats to accommodate complex speech, or else we'd need to engineer a sophisticated voice-box replacement system.  (As in L.Neil Smiths series The Probability Broach.)

Either method is within our near-future capabilities.  The engineering solution is closer, and indeed we have the first crude systems today-- think of Steven Hawking's voicebox.

Some would point out that language experiments have already been done using sign language-- but everything I've read about signing seems to say it's an adjunct to existing language abilities already present in the brain.

What we need is a basic, simple language system, in order to allow natural selection to proceed within the brain structure.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for the "should we" or "should we not" question, I do not know.

Humanities past record of ill-treatment of anyone perceived to be of "lower class" than themselves is abysmal.

Can you think of anything easier to think of as lower class than another species?

Personally, I'd say that until human culture matures into an ADULT one (not even close, yet) we should wait.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A final note:  as with most things scientific, most of the time, as soon as we CAN, we DO.

Regardless of the consequences, regardless of the outcome.

Therefore, I imagine that as soon as a sophisticated engineered solution to 'can't speak' is complete, someone somewhere will hook it up to an infant ape, to see what happens.

Same with a genetic engineered solution: as soon as we understand the differences between human gene triggers (that enable our complex voicebox) and that of other primates, I imagine someone somewhere will try it out--just to see.

And like Pandora, once something is known-- it cannot be un-known.

[Aggie]

On the other hand, primate brain development is so plastic and dependent on the environment for much of it's development, that I often wonder how few generations it would take, if we gave other primates speech first. Obviously, we'd either need to tinker with their genetics to modify their throats to accommodate complex speech, or else we'd need to engineer a sophisticated voice-box replacement system.  (As in L.Neil Smiths series The Probability Broach.

Perhaps we'd be better to start giving simple language capacity to more distantly related species first, and see what falls out of that.  Dogs would be an ideal subject; a 'talking dog', no matter how crude the initial results were, could be extremely useful as a working or assistance animal, and would also be commercially viable as a pet animal.  This is all provided the necessary technology can be installed without discomfort or health consequences to the dog (no worse than tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal, anyways).

[The Meromorph]

One the other hand, it might be really disturbing to find out what dogs really think of us.
I'm already expecting to be really embarrassed if wolves ever are able to comment on our child rearing record...

[Sibling Chatty]

I wonder if we shouldn't sufficiently uplift the rest of humanity before we take on another species.

Speech they've got. A means of not starving to death is another matter. Maybe a little LESS for certain members of the species might even things out?

[Aggie]

*rumble*

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

One the other hand, it might be really disturbing to find out what dogs really think of us.
I'm already expecting to be really embarrassed if wolves ever are able to comment on our child rearing record...

LOL! You reminded me of one of my favorite all-time Far Side cartoon.

I do not have a graphic version, but the drawing was of a white-coated professor-type with an odd gadget in his hand.  It had a microphone-end and a speaker on the other end-- sort of like a reverse megaphone, with an antenna on top.

The caption said: "Dr Philbert finally perfected the Dog Translator"

And in the balloon over each barking dog was:

"Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!"

LOL!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It may be that enabling dog-speech would result in little or nothing.

On the other hand, some smart dogs manage to communicate quite well to an acute observer... 

As far as understanding the other direction, that has been demonstrated many times - just ask anyone who ever lived with a dog, if the dog did not know certain words!  Ha!

[Sibling Chatty]

SomeSchnauzer at my house recognizes the words leash, coat, keys, outside (versus side-side, where doggies go out the back door in the fenced yard, without a leash) snack, snackens and bites (all, if  not given after being mentioned, can be stared at until you fear spontaneous combustion of the bag--also bonies, bonitos and Tiny T's) and the phrase "let me find my shoes."

The phrase "let me find my shoes" is generally followed by "Is Spencer sitting on them?" because he does that...

Spencer can communicate quite well for a canine. Especially things like "Where exactly do you think you're going without the dog?" and "What's the big idea of eating something without giving some to the very good dog?" His most frequent statement, however, is "Quit paying attention to other stuff and pay attention to the handsome grey dog!!" So I do. I'm fairly well trained.

[goat starer]

LOL! You reminded me of one of my favorite all-time Far Side cartoon.

mine was of a bunch of scientists holding a microphone up to a dolphin. On the blackboard behind them were written a series of phonetic phrases...

AW BLAH ES PAN YOL
BWUN OS DEE AS
OH LA ME AM IGOS

and the scientist at the microphone is saying...

Its just making another of those 'aw blah es pan yol' noises again.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

SomeSchnauzer at my house recognizes the words leash, coat, keys, outside (versus side-side, where doggies go out the back door in the fenced yard, without a leash) snack, snackens and bites (all, if  not given after being mentioned, can be stared at until you fear spontaneous combustion of the bag--also bonies, bonitos and Tiny T's) and the phrase "let me find my shoes."

The phrase "let me find my shoes" is generally followed by "Is Spencer sitting on them?" because he does that...

Spencer can communicate quite well for a canine. Especially things like "Where exactly do you think you're going without the dog?" and "What's the big idea of eating something without giving some to the very good dog?" His most frequent statement, however, is "Quit paying attention to other stuff and pay attention to the handsome grey dog!!" So I do. I'm fairly well trained.

Several years ago, when I was still in business with my Dad & Mom, part of those years we worked out of their house.  They had a German-Shepard mix (short hair collie? we think. Mom was GS, dad was a fence-jumper ).

Anyway, Raider had a pretty extensive vocabulary, too.  Both directions. He knew "property" (which entailed a trip to some wild land that Dad owned at the time), squirrel, rabbit, rat, mouse, wasp, snake and several other small animals. Raider's response to each of these words was pretty distinct.  He positively hated snakes and wasps, for example, but his reaction was different.  Snake resulted in an immediate search (by sniffing--what else?  ) of possible snake-locations.  Based on past experience of the same. Wasp resulted in "heads-up" alert.  He REALLY hated wasps-- I think he was bit by one once.  Anyway, if a wasp was spotted, Raider would attempt to SNAP it in two.  He had a particular snap, too-- lips pulled back as far as it was possible to do, tounge way in the back of his mouth-- only his long canines exposed to the danger (think he got bit on the lips, once?)

Anyway, it was interesting to watch a 60 pound dog leap 2-3 feet into the air, snapping at a flying wasp-- and the snaps were loud.

And, eventually the wasp would either fly away, or would lie on the porch, twitching.

Then came another interesting bit:  Raider would extend his claws (by the way he held his foot, it sure looked like that was what he was doing) and with the very tip, would dig the wasp into the patio.  It seems that after a *snap* he experienced one of those coming back ... and he wanted to make sure it was dead!

Only when the offending wasp did not respond in any way, to the claw-scratch, would he ignore it....

Yeah, Raider had a pretty extensive inbound vocabulary.  There were a great many food-related words, too.

As well as safety-related ones.  Being a shepherd-ancestry, he was very protective of his "flock" (namely us).  He did not allow certain types near (by subtle growls-- he rarely needed to actually bark at strangers-- a low *wuff* and a menacing body-language was usually more than sufficient).

But.  If a family member said the words "It's all right, Raider", he was all tail-waggy and happy.  And it had to be those words ... "calm down" would only keep him from actual barking, but would not stop the "you are NOT welcome" body-language.  "It's okay" worked, too.

But, Raider always reserved the right to disagree-- and once in a while, he would not go into tail-waggy-happy. He'd be calm, mind, and he would not show aggression. But, he definitely did not approve, and would signify this by placing [and keeping] his body between the family member and the un-approved person-- no matter how they each moved about... 

Yes, dogs understand language fine.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for the other direction, Raider had a pretty good sign-vocabulary, too. But that is for another time.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Perhaps we'd be better to start giving simple language capacity to more distantly related species first, and see what falls out of that. 

I'm having visions of "the Dish of the Day" from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That moral question should involve AI. I see the *gift* of sentience as a parental responsability, if you are not willing to take good care of your children you shouldn't have 'em.

OTOH, I believe that higher species (most apes and cetaceans, possibly elephants) are already sentient. The fact that we don't know how to properly communicate with those species doesn't mean that they aren't capable among themselves (the case for cetacean communication is strong AFAIK).

Morally I think that we are not ready, but certainly (as was mentioned before) once the technical tools allow it, it will happen.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

...(the case for cetacean communication is strong AFAIK).  ...

So is the case for elephantine-speak.  For a great many years, it was somewhat of a curiosity how the great land-beasts communicated.  For it was clear that they did:  one animal in the community would hear/see/smell something, and within minutes, the whole herd would be looking towards the source of the disturbance.

Most striking, however, was when the herd decided to move off-- they'd ALL go at once.  As if, there were some sort of "hidden" signal....

Indeed, there was, and it was-- to humans.  An elephant study of other things happened to be recording ambient sounds on a very capable tape-recorder.  It was an older type, with variable speed controls ... as the researcher (as I recall) was re-winding the tape at high-speed (and you could hear the speeded-up sounds) she noticed an odd sound that was not present during normal play-back-- it was the sub-sonic rumbles of the herd talking to each other.

And thus, it was discovered that Elephants are Matriarchal.  There is always a QUEEN who decides when the herd is to move off-- and her infra-sonic rumbles are not to be trifled with. 

In fact, once the frequencies were discovered, it was ALSO discovered that these great "silent" beasts were anything but silent.

I often wondered what they were talking about?

"Did you see Kelli's new calf?"

"Oh, yes.  Hardly 4' tall if it's an inch."

"Scrawny thing.  Is what she gets hanging about with that no-account Ralph.  He's just no good, I tell you."

"Oh, isn't it the truth. Hope the little one gets enough fat, before the migration. I'm not slowing down for it, I tell you."

"Oh, me neither. Kelli's just such a flirt-- why, just the other day, when we were eating that grove of trees ..." ... 

[Bluenose]

Actually I quite agree that animals like the great apes etc are sentient, I well remember once sitting on one side of the glass in the gorilla enclosure at Melbourne zoo with one of the gorillas on the other side.  we had quite a conversation in a way.  I definitely got the feeling that there was someone looking back at me, that there was an intelligence there.

However, this only makes me wonder all the more whether we have a duty to help these fellow creatures to progress beyond their current limited level of sapience.  I also wonder about what might happen if we do manage to produce a true artificial intelligence.  To me the two concepts are inextricable linked.  If we are to embark on these projects we need to develop a concept of "sapient rights" or some such idea.  I guess the thing I am doing here is doodling with some ideas about where we might go in the future.  The thing is, I think that the implications of these projects are so great that we cannot afford to wait until the reality to begin to think about the moral consequences.

Yes, I agree, we as humans need to grow up a bit before we are ready to act as the sponsors for new forms of full intelligence.  I do worry about how we act amongst ourselves, so many people do judge others by the colour of their skin, or the shape of their facial features etc.  I know that my parents brough me up with a better view of other people than they themselves have - I am more imprinted with their ideals than their actual feelings.  I cringe at times when I hear my mother speak about aboriginal people, yet I can understand knowing her background why she thinks like she does.  Yet I can still feel myself at times when I see someone of another race doing something stupid blaming it on their ethnicity. Then I realise what I have thought and to myself and I feel ashamed, for I know it is not true.  It is very similar to what is often called in the military the "garrison town effect".  When a military establishment exists near a town, the locals often blame the military personnel for all the trouble in the town and they automatically think that all the soldiers (sailors or airmen) are troublemaker.  This is easy to understand when you realise that these people are easily identified (short hair etc) and that amongst any large enough group of people there will be a few trouble makers.  When those few from the easily identified group do their thing and make arses of themselves, the casual onlooker makes the "obvious" connection between that characteristic (soldoer) and the bad behaviour and then generalises that to the entire class of people.  This is I'm sure, the cause of much racism.

Our brains are very good at making connections based on very little evidence.   This is an excellent survival trait for an animal living on its wits in a hostile environment, especially one that is not armed with sharp claws, big teeth and prodigious strength.  One in fact just like our ancestors on the plains of Africa.  Unfortunately this ability to make such quantum leaps in association can give false positives.  This is the cause of the misidentification of a link between something we do not like and an (in reality) unrelated trait such a skin colour, or whether a person comes from the military base outside our town.  This is then natural function of our brains, but it is when we allow ourselves to believe this automatic connection that we give rise to prejudice.  I believe I am better at combating this than my parents and I hope my children are better than I am.  Indeed I think they may well be for they had something as a child that I did not, exposure to people of different ethnic background to themselves.  I recently went to lunch with my son and a bunch of his mates from University.  They were a very mixed bag ethnically, but they were all laughing and joking together like any bunch of young people.  I see this as a sign of hope for the future.

So I agree we need to work on improving ourselves, but I also believe we can do it.  When the time comes and we do have apes we can converse with, or truly intelligent machines, or maybe even little green men from a star far far away, perhaps we can make a better fist of it than we have amongst ourselves.

Sibling Bluenose