A Question of Ethics

[Griffin NoName]

Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor

Oh dear, my grandchildren weren't screened 

[Aggie]

It's akin to saying: "Implant this anti-violence chip in your head, all of you. It'll make for a better society." 

Only it's something that's done to you before your born, and changes who you'd otherwise be.  Permanently.

Ugh.  Eugenics all over again (although the article dismisses the connection).

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

"We're routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, and there's little public outcry," he said.

What isn't mentioned in the article is that selective abortion is explicitly part of the screening process.  For serious medical conditions, this is an ethical issue that has slid by with fairly little discussion. Take note: We are now selectively aborting people with Down's syndrome. Should we be? I sympathize with the difficulties a family is undertaking raising a Down's child, and suppose when it comes right down to it I support the right to decide whether this is something that a family is strong enough to take on, but I can in no way imagine that a society without Down's people would be a better place. 

----

Um, so exactly what percentage of potential people have 'personality flaws' and as such would be candidates for selective abortion? From what I've seen, it's damned near 100% - myself included. Humans have been somewhat evolutionarily stagnant for quite some time now and have depended on cultural evolution instead.... could we please try to evolve our culture a bit first? 

It seems to me that the barriers to constructive cultural evolution are largely matters of money and power, and those afraid of losing or sharing such would tend to be interested in reducing those pesky genetic predispositions to empathy and ethics in their children (I have no doubt that genetic engineering of children will be the domain of the rich far before anyone else).  I could see, however, why they might like a more friendly, docile populace to govern.  What's being proposed is IMHO the genetic domestication of the consumer into a passive 'sheep class', and the rise of a hyperintelligent, genetically dominant 'wolf class'. 

[Swatopluk]

Well, there are a few well-tested ways of simple brain surgery for both. Just decide which wire to cut. One disconnects the conscience, the other the aggression. There have been actual considerations by the military to do the former on (yet) volunteers*. The main objection was less ethical but fear that these guys would also have no qualms to point their weapons on their comrades (or worse, commanding officers).
Plato knew the problem and devoted an important section of his Politeia to it.

*or to recruit selectively those where the connection was 'naturally' disabled

[Griffin NoName]

Who would sit on the Selection Ethics Panel?

[Swatopluk]

Upstandig citizens of course (i.e. tax-cheaters that use some of the saved money to invest in legislators etc.)
</sarcasm>

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

Yeah.... where do you draw the hypothetical line in the sand?

Don't these idiots realize that some of the most distinguished thinkers/artists/geniuses down through history, were also frequently sociopaths?  In that they pretty much wrote their own rules with regards to what is and what isn't acceptable behavior for themselves?

If all you wanted was a world full of mindless sheeple, duly doing their sheep-duties, then yeah... go ahead with your pogrom of human genetic engineering (for that's what it is).

...meh.

[Swatopluk]

It's not as if 'social' methods would not work. feudalism, despotism etc. have been around quite a bit longer than this equality stuff.
It has just become a wee bit more difficult since producing the stuff for modern creature comforts requires some use of brain and once that part has to be used on a regular base it becomes dangerous to the status quo.

[Roland Deschain]

This sort of thing would set yet another dangerous precedent. I can fully understand the need a parent feels to screen embryos for diseases such as susceptibility to breast cancer, Downs, etc, especially in a family with a long history of such disease, but this? No. There are already clinics able to screen for eye and hair colour, which I consider pretty frivolous, although the study on how to do this may well lead to other, more worthwhile advances, but screening for traits such as mentioned I cannot agree with.

Someone who is genetically pre-disposed to develop psychopathy will generally only become a psychopath if their upbringing is poor. The people most likely to benefit from this are those with enough money to have it done, as it will be expensive at first, so it won't generally keep down the number of psychopaths in society, although having a more empathic elite (you know what I mean by that) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Just look at the numbers in finance, banking, and big business.

As said above, so many of our greatest artists, musicians, and scientists have had "issues" in one way or another, so have many of our revolutionists. Without these people, our lives would be so much less interesting. This is essentially an attempt to solve society's ills without facing up to society's ills. You cannot wave a magic wand and make it all go away, which is essentially what this will end up being.

I have no issue with the genetic causes of mental illness being found, as people with certain traits, such as the psychopathy mentioned above, can be found early and treated early. This will ensure proper support for the family, teaching them how to cope and hopefully stopping someone breaking down in their future life, which can lead to many problems. With the correct care and treatment, and sometimes without, people with even severe mental illness can function perfectly well in society at large. If the environmental factors which lead to severe (or negative) expression of their illness are effectively removed from their lives when growing up, we will do two things:-

1 - We will reduce the problems which may come as part and parcel of some mental illness, such as time spent with doctors, homelessness, crime, money spent on treatment, etc.

2 - We will go one hell of a long way towards helping the families of those with children with mental illness become better people.

That second one should be being done anyway, regardless of if the child has a susceptibility to mental illness, but then i've mentioned that several times before in other threads on the forum.

What worries me the most is if this sets a precedent towards some form of mandatory changes, all done in the name of the common good. I know the intention of Professor Julian Savulescu is most likely an honourable one, and I do understand where he is coming from, as mental illness is a big issue, but solving the issue this way is not necessarily the right thing to do.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm torn on the subject, on one end forcing genetic screening and/or abortions sounds terribly wrong, but OTOH I do think there are cases in which the idea of terminating a pregnancy due to genetic problems is a very reasonable endeavor.

Now getting into the specifics might merit it's own analysis for each case as the considerations are quite different, Dawn syndrome is a very different animal compared to psycho/sociopathy and the costs to society and the individual are quite different and in really different areas. The debate chamber is open at all times...

I agree that making it mandatory makes abuses incredibly easy, plus there is a portion of the population (the so-called 'pro-life' bunch) that would never ever agree with such policy, so there is precious little chance of something like that happening anytime soon.

Nevertheless genetic selection in conjunction with in-vitro fertilization not only are a reality but one used more and more everyday (see the current problems in India with gender selection already creating an enormous imbalance between males and females), so this is an issue that will have to be considered, debated and ethically resolved.

[Griffin NoName]

Dawn syndrome is a very different animal compared to psycho/sociopathy

From Urban Dictionary

1. Dawn's Syndrome

Identical to Down's syndrome, except the person is also morbidly obese and Catholic.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

[Sibling DavidH]

Two lovely young ladies at the Echo farm park trip yesterday; both good friends of ours.  The one on the left wove my camera strap and helps Cap'n B with craftwork.

They are both Downs people.  They are happy souls, they enjoy life and contribute a lot.  I'm just happy to socialise with them.

EDIT: I decided to move the pic to 'Toadfish Illuminations' where it's private.  Sorry to make it awkward.

[Roland Deschain]

It was a great picture, David. It becomes more difficult with Down's. Someone with the syndrome will be happy, as they do not know any differently. They will not have lived a life, say, in constant pain due to a physical abnormality, or lived "normally", then become like that. They are a lot of work for the parents involved at times, and for any other carers, but is it right to subject someone to that life, even if they won't know any better?

I honestly do not know the answer to that, but I can understand a couple deciding to abort a foetus if it will be born that way, just as I can understand a couple wanting to raise a child with Down's. My experiences with them has always been one of positivity and a sense of love friendship without needing anything in return. I do not envy someone having that choice to make.

[Griffin NoName]

I do not envy someone having that choice to make.

I think that's part of the problem. Suddenly we have huge choices to make where before there were none.

[Aggie]

Ayuh, and I don't see any significant cultural shifts to better equip us for the level and depth of choice we're presented with.  The outcomes are more positive, generally, but the choices are more difficult and may carry negative consequences simply from having to make a difficult choice. 

[Roland Deschain]

This is the issue with any advance like this. Are we, as a species, mature enough to make the right decisions, and will we ever be? I don't think there's an answer to this, as when we are mature enough to make that decision without guilt or regret, there'll be some other moral dilemma just as great, if not greater. We humans like it simple, but make our lives anything but.

[pieces o nine]

I do not envy someone having that choice to make.

I think that's part of the problem. Suddenly we have huge choices to make where before there were none.

Those choices have always existed, although in the past they were made post-birth. How many cultures have a past where the tribal leaders or fathers formally accepted or rejected an infant and simply relegated "undesirable" ones to abandonment or exposure? Later, "imperfect" people were unquestioningly institutionalized (sometimes for profit!) far out of sight and mind of the rest of the population.

Not until relatively recent times did sentiment regularly outweigh survival, whether (depending on the specific culture) for the very young, the very old, the chronically ill, those with mental or physical disabilities, or the 'wrong" gender, or 'wrong' orientation. Yes, we have a long way to go as a species in developing enlightened ethics, but we have come quite a way as well.

[Bluenose]

I know a number of people with Down's syndrome, they seem generally to be happy people and can be a joy to know.  OTOH, I had a friend many years ago who's sister had Down's and she was a different kettle of fish entirely so just like "normal" people, I don't think you can generalise too much.

On another note, my sister in law is intellectually disabled and also suffers from some form of psychotic illness, possibly bipolar disorder  (just how a diagnosis can be made in her case seems impossible to me), plus she has petit mal epilepsy.  Her quality of life is extremely poor and she now lives in a nursing home where she requires 24 hour care.  She refuses to weight bear, so now she cannot walk due to muscle wastage.  She has had many broken bones and nasty bruises from the falls due to her absence seizures (and I am sure that they are not due to abuse, I have seen these myself - they are very frightening).   She can be very disruptive if she does not get the attention she thinks she deserves (all the time) although things have been a bit better recently since she has had a new room-mate who happens to have Down's.  I raise this question because on the whole had the option of aborting been available - with the certain knowledge of how she would turn out, which of course would never have been able to be known - I wonder if it might have been better for all concerned, including my SIL.  Her life has no challenge, no observable joy, only torment and anguish.  Add to that the effects on Mrs Blue as a child always having to be the one who had to accept second place, be the grown up one, because her sister simply and rightly took all the attention of her parents and couldn't help it or do any better.  It may have been necessary, but it was not fair, and Mrs Blue to this day still hold some residual resentment for her sister for in effect taking away a lot of her childhood.  So I do not think it is at all clear cut.  It is easy to take the moral high ground and say these lives should all be cherished and, in the abstract, I agree.  However, it is nowhere near as easy as that when you're the ones faced with the reality of life in these circumstances.

No, I am not calling for the automatic selection against minor genetic defects, but given the lives that some are dealt, I do wonder whether if some of these lives of misery can be avoided whether it might not be a good thing.  I do not hold with the notion that an embryo is yet a person - it may develop into one, but the characteristics that make us fully human develop much later , IMHO.  If major defects that would limit the possibilities of a happy life can be detected at an early stage, for those where the risk is known and can be tested for very early, even before implantation via in-vitro fertilisation where possible, then I think that the options should be made available to parents, but it needs to consider not only the parents, but also the potential quality of life of the future child and adult.  Not a simple or easy situation.

What I really don't want to hear is the zealots like the right-to-lifers meddling in other people's lives.  It's all very well for them to make morally absolute statements, but they do not have to live with the consequences of the decisions they seek to influence.  Their input into these sorts of debates is almost entirely toxic as far as I am concerned.

[Aggie]

Those choices have always existed, although in the past they were made post-birth. How many cultures have a past where the tribal leaders or fathers formally accepted or rejected an infant and simply relegated "undesirable" ones to abandonment or exposure? Later, "imperfect" people were unquestioningly institutionalized (sometimes for profit!) far out of sight and mind of the rest of the population.

Not until relatively recent times did sentiment regularly outweigh survival, whether (depending on the specific culture) for the very young, the very old, the chronically ill, those with mental or physical disabilities, or the 'wrong" gender, or 'wrong' orientation. Yes, we have a long way to go as a species in developing enlightened ethics, but we have come quite a way as well.

To respond to this and Bluenose's post, I think (or have read enough to convince me) that the issue relates to who is responsible for the choice.  To place it directly on the prospective parents with no outside guidance is said to lead to a worse psychological outcome for the parents than either no choice or an officially-guided choice.

I'd suggest that a compromise for certain genetic disorders is to have an 'official' recommendation for specific disorders on the books, but to allow parents complete veto-power over that recommendation. For those parents who end up aborting in a recommended case, they can fall back on the security that the doctor / medical system effectively made the choice, not them.  For those who feel strongly that they should raise their own child no matter the difficulties, they will have the freedom to make that choice.  Either way, there will still be some regret, I'm sure, but comparing outcomes in the US vs. French systems seem to indicate that a medical recommendation lessens the burden of choice somewhat.

[Sibling DavidH]

I'd suggest that a compromise for certain genetic disorders is to have an 'official' recommendation for specific disorders on the books, but to allow parents complete veto-power over that recommendation.

Agreed, that would be the ideal middle road.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Back to Pieces, in hunter gatherer societies a disabled child is a real burden that could significantly diminish the chances of survival of the whole clan. Nowadays it's relatively easy to take said High Road, but context can make a very meaningful difference.
--
Certainly these kinds of decisions have to be well thought, even when you have a recommendation, the outcome may not be optimal (in cases with children born with genital ambiguity, doctors recommended surgery but a great number of 'assigned' individuals are very unhappy with the decision).

Lastly there is the quality of life argument, can you guarantee a reasonable quality of life for the individual in question? I'm inclined to believe that the majority of kids with mental retardation, or certain mental disabilities will have a very low quality of life not because it is technically impossible to provide one, but because the resources of the parents/society may not be available to take proper care of them.
--
Again, this doesn't cover Psycho/Sociopathy/Narcissism, in which the cost to society should be pondered.

[Griffin NoName]

I agree with most of what's been said. But I do wonder a bit about absolute knowledge. For example suppose the fetus (or zygot etc) has a gene for say "autism", but it's impossible to tell how bad it will be? Many people who have Asperger's have good lives (some I know don't, but most do) but people nearer the other end of the autistic spectrum have no quality of life at all. So, unless some clever people develop a "how to tell how bad this will be" test, the choice seems impossible.

[Bluenose]

Your quite right Griff, that's the nub of the matter.  In my SIL's case, the doctors do not know why she is the way she is, it is not Down's or anything else that they can pin down.  At the most they think it may have been brain damage during birth, but it was not apparently an unusual labour, so whether that means anything is entirely moot.  I suspect she just is that way.  So although my mother in law did say a few times in her later years that it would have been better had my SIL not been born, there would have been and still is no way of telling early on that there was anything wrong.  Indeed, she apparently seemed like a normal baby at first and it was only when she started pre school that any issues became apparent.

So as I see it at he moment this sort of choice should only be made in the most easily detected and more severe cases, where there is a pretty clear idea of the likely outcome.  Just how common that might be I have no idea.  I rather suspect that in the majority of cases, like with my SIL, we will never know that someone's life is so compromised until it is too late to consider doing anything.  It is just sad for all those involved.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The technical problem will take some time to solve with a reasonable amount of accuracy, you would need a full DNA profile, simulate growth under the conditions of the mother's womb and then you get a picture closer to what it would be. Computing power for such feat will take from 30 to a 100 years to arrive, plus the development of the simulation models and proper understanding of how the genome works (that one may take even longer).

Beyond that, only the more severe conditions can be properly screened.

[Griffin NoName]

But Zono, that only takes care of the nature; we are still left with nurture. For example, there is evidence that babies with autism do not go through the attachment phase properly. Of course there's no way at present to know if that is cause or effect, but if mothers/fathers/main carer knew how to handle the issues in the attachment phase better, then it may be the degree of autism could be reduced this is pure speculation on my part. That's just one example of enviromental affects. Surely it can never be reduced to pure genetics?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

While it is true that nurture is key in many aspects, the most critical ones will happen in the womb. By the time the baby is out you would be able to tell if proper nurturing would be able to solve a number of issues. There will always be some gray areas in which it will be difficult to make a full assessment but as time progresses less cases will fall into that area.

Also, it will be possible to correct some of the problems at that point.

It may sound scarily similar to Gattaca but as knowledge advances the ethics of genetic manipulation will replace those of simple screenings.

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

It may sound scarily similar to Gattaca but as knowledge advances the ethics of genetic manipulation will replace those of simple screenings.

I was thinking of that movie--- alas, I found it too depressing to watch all the way through to the end, so I don't know how it turned out (I presume the "normal" eventually gets caught).

The thing that movie gets wrong, and that many people get wrong is that DNA is not a blueprint.  Not even close. As Zono hinted at, there is situational effects happening within the womb which play as much an effect as DNA does.

It's really hard to understand how DNA works; and even harder to explain.   

But, here's one result:  identical twins have identical DNA.  If DNA were just a blueprint/instruction-set, then they'd both have identical fingerprints, identical placement of their appendixes, identical retina patterns, identical iris patterns, identical minor skin blemishes, identical-identical everything, really.

But they don't.

Their eyes are different.  Their fingerprints are different.  Even the lengths of their various bones-- finger, leg, arm, vertebra-- all slightly different from one twin to the next.   This is because DNA does not specify how the fingerprint should look-- it only specifies loosely, "make ridges in the skin, when you get around to growing finger-end skin"  (and yes--that's overly simplified too)

This is because DNA contains too much information-- way, way too much.  Within human genome, for example, there is still code that makes tails, gills, webbing-between-digits, etc.   Most of this unneeded is switched off, all of the time.  But it's still there, lurking.   In fact, vast swathes of human DNA is useless switched-off junk-- the so-called "junk DNA".  What keeps it off, we are only now beginning to figure out.    The science behind that, is called epigenetics.

But it's the switching-off and on of DNA sequences that makes it so much more complicated than a simple set of instructions-- it's as if, within the whole, there were things like:  "grow for approximately 5 miles, or until you get to the end[of what? unknown], then turn to your right about 40 degrees, then travel for another 2 or 3 miles, depending on what you find nearby: if you find fat, go 2 miles, if you find muscle, go 3 miles, if you find skin, stop and switch-off"

Okay, that's a badly mixed-metaphor, but I think it helps a bit.  If DNA were a blueprint?  You'd have specifics-- "go 3.1845 inches, then turn north 8.35761 degrees".  What we have is all relative, instead.   "Do this until that happens, then start doing this other until this next thing happens, then stop".   Relative.   Or more specific:  DNA "says" to the cells at a budding zygote's what-will-become-a-shoulder, start growing an arm here (near the neck, at the head-end of the body).  Grow the arm until you get to the elbow, then grow an elbow until it's done, then start growing more arm (only, post-elbow style this time).  Grow until you get to the wrist, then grow the wrist, then switch up and grow fingers.

How do the cells "know" when the arm is finished, and to start on the elbow?  Unknown.   How do the cells "know" when the elbow is finished, and to begin growing the lower arm?  Unknown--not really.

Until we figure out what controls these switches more fully? 

There is no way we can "read" DNA to the point the movie Gattica describes.

Nor, I strongly suspect, will we be able to determine how severe Autism could be in a potential autistic kid.   Slight autism can create fantastically-capable genius.   Severe autism creates hell-on-earth for the affected person.  If we figure out what section of DNA is affected, do we prune it all out, the possibly wiping out all potential Einsteins in the process?   Or do we tolerate (and subsequently care for) the occasional severe cases, to permit the emergence of that rare genius?

Who decides, here?   In Gattica, it appears that Big Business decided for us-- like it or no-- by the simple fact that Big Business demanded only the superior genetic person for it's major employees, leaving the rest to fend for themselves as best as they were able.

And I could easily see, if left unchecked, Capitalism doing exactly the same thing-- I've said many times, that uncontrolled capitalism is pure-evil.   It's like Atomic Fire-- it must be fettered and contained, or it becomes hell-on-earth.

(okay, I'll step down now... )

[Bluenose]

To pick up on Bib's point, I don't think we will ever be able to "read" DNA in the way that people often think.  I remember a discussion about the emergent behaviour we see in large flocks of flying birds which appear to have some over-riding control process going on that gives rise to apparently synchronised movement of the flock.  What has been shown, however, is that simply having local rules, applied locally, can give exactly the same behaviour.  In the birds case, something like "fly just about this close to the birds on each side, if they get about this much closer, fly roughly that way..." that sort of thing.  They have run computer simulations which reproduce the overall behaviour completely using just local rules.  So I suspect it is with DNA, it is a whole lot of local rules applied locally and none of the rules are exactly prescriptive, they are all "about this much" or "until something like this happens" that sort of thing.  Just as Bob describes in his examples.

We are guilty of believing what is called in the Science of Discworld* books "lies to children".  Most of our ideas about how the universe works are one form or another of lies to children.  In other words simplifications of reality that help make it more understandable, but which are not in actual fact correct.  it has been said before that if you think you understand quantum physics, you don't.  So it is with moist other things.  With DNA we use expressions like DNA code and genetic blueprint often forgetting that these are simply shorthand expressions that kinda sorta give the idea of what we are talking about.  However, in a very real sense these expressions are misleading because the reality they are describing does not have all the characteristics that the expression implies.  Bob has already explained why DNA is not a blueprint.  Similarly, DNA code implies that there is some kind of external influence that interprets the code (or indeed created it).  This is not the case.  DNA works because of chemistry, there is no outside interpreter of the "Code" it works the way it does because of the rules of chemistry - again, local rules applied locally.  Frankly I find thinking about how it all really does works - as imperfect as my understanding no doubt is - to be far more satisfying and truly wonderful than the card board cut out version generally presented in the popular press.




* I thoroughly recommend these books as excellent non-intimidating primers into much of science. Written completely for the ordinary person yet dealing with a whole lot of fundamental issues in science.  It helps if you enjoy the Diskworld as the books are written with alternate sections of normal prose and sections or narrative using humorous characters from Terry Pratchet's Discworld novels, usually the wizards.

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

Thanks, Blue, for the recommendation-- I'll post a link in my Books To Buy wishlist.  (which I try to keep going, as I'm always running to the end of a good book, and in search of the next)



By the way, your metaphor comparing DNA to birds flocking is a superb one--- perfect.   I must try to remember that, too:  "local rules for local effects".   Emergent properties are really what makes the world go 'round, are they not?



Edit-Edit:

Dammit Jim!  I'm a doctor, not a scribe!  That is not available for Kindle.  

(I'm unwilling to murder yet another tree in this way.... )*


Edit-edit-edit:  

nor is it, apparently, available as an audio book... *sigh*

edit-ed---meh:

According to Google Books (and I was all set to submit to Google's stuff too) states:  "No eBook available".... **sigh**




_{* in truth, it's mainly due to not wanting still more stuff than I already have...}

[Griffin NoName]

So it is with moist other things.  

Wet DNA ? 

[Bluenose]

Umm, I have at least one of the books on Kindle.  Try here

[pieces o nine]

So it is with moist other things.  

Wet DNA ? 

I missed that -- I was too enchanted with

To pick up on Bib's point,

Thank you, Blue. I feel my speelink airs are usually just weird. I appreciate entertaining ones!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Back to topic.

At some point in our genetic understanding we may be able to do better than broad links between genes and diseases (right now we know some of those by simple statistical matching but no understanding of the process, ie, A--> ?? --> B), and we may be able to do broad generalizations but those still will be more for basic understanding than a real mechanical understanding. That's why the way to understand this processes is via simulation, although even then random events can make significant differences, so it wouldn't be absurd to say that there is a X% chance of this or that condition developing even if you simulate the whole replication in vivo.

We are quite far from that point but it is quite likely we'll get there at some point.
---
Simulation has ethical ramifications in itself, I was reading that there is work happening at this moment so simulate a full brain, they are capable of simulate a simple invertebrate's brain (that is, every single neuron in that brain with the proper interconnections) right now, but they estimate that with the continual improvement of computing power in 15 to 20 years it will be possible to simulate a full human brain in a computer simulation. What are the ethical concerns of AI?

[Griffin NoName]

It's life Jim, but not as we know it.

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

Back to topic.

At some point in our genetic understanding we may be able to do better than broad links between genes and diseases (right now we know some of those by simple statistical matching but no understanding of the process, ie, A--> ?? --> B), and we may be able to do broad generalizations but those still will be more for basic understanding than a real mechanical understanding. That's why the way to understand this processes is via simulation, although even then random events can make significant differences, so it wouldn't be absurd to say that there is a X% chance of this or that condition developing even if you simulate the whole replication in vivo.

We are quite far from that point but it is quite likely we'll get there at some point.
---
Simulation has ethical ramifications in itself, I was reading that there is work happening at this moment so simulate a full brain, they are capable of simulate a simple invertebrate's brain (that is, every single neuron in that brain with the proper interconnections) right now, but they estimate that with the continual improvement of computing power in 15 to 20 years it will be possible to simulate a full human brain in a computer simulation. What are the ethical concerns of AI?

One of the episodes of Star Trek, Next Gen had exactly that:  a seemingly harmless game that Riker had got ahold of, was worrisome to the crusher kid & his almost-girlfriend.   So they took one of the games, and ran it through a simulated human brain in fast-time, to see what the long-term consequences it had.

My point in bringing it up, is that they simulated the whole human cortex, with it's billions of interconnections, using their non-sentient super-computer.

Possible?  Sure.

But-- what of the simulated brain?  Did it have a personality?  Was it self-aware, even if only being a simulation?   The show ignored those questions, but they occurred to me....

[Roland Deschain]

Bob, ST:TNG handles sentience of artificial life, both android and hologram, in many other episodes, as do DS9 and Voyager. TNG focuses on android AI because it has Data, whilst Voyager focuses on Hologram AI, as it has the Doctor. In the episode you refer to, the simulation was non-sentient. I'm not sure how much you know about the inner workings of the ST universe, but the people made with holographic technology can be made to be self-aware or not, and have their inquisitiveness reduced to levels well below the threshold of sentience. This is like switching on and off sentience, to a degree.

There's a particular episode of TNG, where a Starfleet research scientist wants to study Data by opening him up and taking him apart. Captain Picard decides to argue for Data's sentience and rights as an individual. Patrick Stewart loved these types of episodes, and I believe he directed this one himself, although I may be wrong, because of the complicated ethics involved. At what point does something become sentient, and at what point do we begin to care for it?

Voyager handled Holographic sentience in greater depth than TNG due to the Doctor, as I mentioned before, and it was the Doctor who started this off (conversations about his rights). People on board were rude to him, treating him as a literal tool. Some switched him off without consulting him, others left him running without thinking. The Doctor gained the right to switch himself off, and through Kes' work, started to gain a little respect. He then integrated himself into the officers' briefings, and eventually gained a little freedom when holo-emitters were installed in other parts of the ship (he was also free to use the holodeck).

One of the more ingenious ideas used with the Doctor was when he was allowed to learn, as this led to a number of in-depth stories, looking at the consequences of him becoming more like his flesh and blood shipmates. There was even an episode where he disobeyed Janeway's orders, and she reprimanded him just like any other member of the crew.

Another episode handled the running of a simulation of an entire Irish town on the holodeck, and how the holograms learned that they were not "real". It ended up with Janeway agreeing to run the program continuously, both as a means for the crew to let off steam in their downtime, and as a way to please the holograms who had pleaded to be allowed to live "normally". Yet another episode handled renegade holograms who had escaped captivity, but I believe that was related to the Doctor's misdemeanour in the previous paragraph.

This is the great thing with science fiction; it can quite easily handle complex ethical issues that may be too hard to handle if set in the present day. Fantastical devices can be introduced into the story that would be impossible to introduce into it if it were set in our own timeframe. Add a raygun and a FTL ship, and you're set.
______________

I was thinking of that movie--- alas, I found it too depressing to watch all the way through to the end, so I don't know how it turned out (I presume the "normal" eventually gets caught).

The thing that movie gets wrong, and that many people get wrong is that DNA is not a blueprint.  Not even close. As Zono hinted at, there is situational effects happening within the womb which play as much an effect as DNA does.

You need to watch the end of the film. It's one of my favourites. It's a slow burn, yes, but more than worth watching in its entirety.

You're wrong about the movie getting the "DNA = Blueprint" argument wrong. The movie actually argues for the other side, and quite effectively. Yes, it deals with the ethical problems involved with that type of society, but it also covers the loss of individual spirit and drive to succeed, and how we can overcome our own weaknesses, effectively saying there is no such thing as pre-determinism. I'm not sure how far you got, but that's the overall message to me.

[Swatopluk]

Although it is slightly off-topic: Once can go one step further. In theory a computer can simulate a brain but also anything a computer can do can (in theory) be replicated by a purely mechanical device e.g. some enlarged version of Babbage's engines or (an extreme case) a system of pulleys and ropes (as A.K.Dewdney has shown*). Would be a wee bit slow but we'd have to conclude that (in theory) a collection of rope and pulleys could be sentient.

*Computer Recreations, Scientific American April 1988, Vol 258, #4, p.118-121

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

A mechanical processor would be the size of a city. A mechanical human brain would be the size of a planet.

Go ask Deep Thought.

[Roland Deschain]

Sentience, I believe, requires a level of self-awareness, and is not a specific point, but rather a sliding scale. Being human, of course we would attribute a specific point as where a being, whether mechanical or organic, would necessitate us to say, "Yes, this is a sentient being," but this doesn't mean we would attribute any less respect to a being below this (see chimps and how people fight against them being experimented against).

To the question of whether a system of levers and pulleys could become self-aware, no matter its size, I suppose that all depends upon its ability to store information, and how it performs when interacted with. You could say that it will never become sentient, as it needs input from us to work, but then don't we need input from the cells inside us? It's bizarre, but not totally unfeasible.

A mechanical processor would be the size of a city. A mechanical human brain would be the size of a planet.

Go ask Deep Thought.

Isn't this all getting a little too Messianic?

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

Bob, ST:TNG handles sentience of artificial life, both android and hologram, in many other episodes, as do DS9 and Voyager. TNG focuses on android AI because it has Data, whilst Voyager focuses on Hologram AI, as it has the Doctor. In the episode you refer to, the simulation was non-sentient. I'm not sure how much you know about the inner workings of the ST universe, but the people made with holographic technology can be made to be self-aware or not, and have their inquisitiveness reduced to levels well below the threshold of sentience. This is like switching on and off sentience, to a degree.

I watched both series rather completely.  And I was bothered then, and still am, that they seemed willing to create seemingly sentient beings who were switched off-- not self-aware.

And I had to ask-- how?

I don't think it's possible to separate sentience and self-awareness.  Given a sufficiently complex sentience, self-awareness would be an automatic emergent property, I'd wager.  So the simulated brain-- if true to a real human brain, would be both sentient and self-aware, if only briefly (during the run of the simulation).

To try to simulate a human brain without that, would not be, in fact, a simulation, but an approximation at best, a sort of facsimile or cartoon.   And, since the game in that episode depended on a real, sentience to interact with the game's mechanics (and the emotional feedback that was used to brainwash the individual), then a cartoon or facsimile simulation would not have told Crusher anything useful.   Which was my complaint all along-- unless that brain was de-facto a real human brain-- even if only in a virtual space-- then it was inhumane to dismiss it without a thought, once it had been created.

If it was not sentient?  It wasn't a simulation at all.

I think the writers could have dodged that one better than they did-- they were usually quite clever at foreseeing consequences of what they wrote, within the context of the ST universe.   For example, they could have written that the game affected the physical chemistry of the brain's basic workings--- and simple physical chemistry could be simulated with what we have today.  But what they wrote, was that the game actually affected the thinking/emotional parts of the brain--something that would only occur in a sentient, self-aware simulation.

Another thing that sometimes bothered me, was that the ST writers assumed that sentience was a binary state.  Clearly, with studies of our own planet, it's hardly that-- there are degrees of sentience and self-awareness, it's not a simple switch you can just toggle on and off-- even dogs have a pretty good sense of self-awareness and sentience (to name one example).

But it's fascinating to contemplate mechanical sentience-- and I think entirely possible.   We are only now on the cusp of massively parallel--processing, in the electronics industry.  Through evolution, nature invented the parallel-processor millions of years ago, in the form of neural networks.

I think, once massively-large parallel-processing power becomes cheap enough, sentience and self-awareness will simply emerge, aka James P Hogon's The Two Faces of Tomorrow  (link to an ebook copy here  it's an excellent read, if not a really deep one.)

[Griffin NoName]

I don't think it's possible to separate sentience and self-awareness.  Given a sufficiently complex sentience, self-awareness would be an automatic emergent property, I'd wager.  So the simulated brain-- if true to a real human brain, would be both sentient and self-aware, if only briefly (during the run of the simulation).

Either we have totally different understandings of "self-awareness" or it must have several meanings, which I need explaining.

My usgae:

1. Being in tune with one's emotions and feelings to the extent of understanding why one acts as one does. Being emotionally intelligent.

the number of people who fail this test never ceases to amaze me

2. Understanding that one is a physical body - eg. apes who recognise themselves in mirrors - elephants do too.

To be sentient to me just means a seperate independent individual who acts out stuff and is aware of stuff. eg Like any animal can look after their baby, they may be acting instinctively in terms of drive, but they must also be sentient.

Seems like I am going down a different path than you with this.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My tiels may fail the mirror test if untrained but they seem perfectly self aware, or as self aware as a 2-3 year old kid.

I dare to say that many animals are sentient at least to a degree, the uncomfortable thought is that we may be eating sentieng beings on a regular basis.

As for ST's iterations on AI they are a bit short on details but it would seem that any holodeck persona is fundamentally a full fledged simulation, not a behavioral bot, and everytime one is generated his/her memories are part of them.

In a simulation the main questions are: would we know if we are simulated if our memories are seamless and complete? And, Would we notice if the simulation ends?

[Griffin NoName]

In a simulation the main questions are: would we know if we are simulated if our memories are seamless and complete? And, Would we notice if the simulation ends?

Always a question that gives me the creeps. When I think about it, I get dizzy. What if I am just a simulation. Actually I always stop on the thought that if I am a simulation (stopped at death) then pain is not real; makes going to the dentist easier.

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

Sentience goes hand-in-glove with free will, I think.

That is:  does the dog wander about the yard solely because his instincts drive him from point to point?  Or does he possess an innate curiosity about his yard, and is actually interested in seeing what's there, what has changed from day to day and so on.

A cockroach is insentient-- it moves strictly based on a short list of stimulus-response engines.  But a dog is not; a dog can be sad, happy, curious, inquisitive, bored, lonely, content-- the same sorts of things a human can be, come to think of it.

And different dogs have different responses to a given set of stimuli in the same yard; each follows his own bent--his own free will, deciding what he wants to go sniff closer or what he will just ignore.

So, too with humans; we decide this; we decide that-- based on some internal self-dialog (that may be just below the conscious mind) of free will.

That, to me, is sentience:  doing what one wishes with the world as it's presented.

A robot cannot do this; it must follow it's internal rules, regardless if those rules have meaning or no--- not unlike that nonsentient cockroach, come to think of it.   A cockroach could be thought of as a kind of biological robot, following it's instinctive set of instructions.  Sure, to a very-very limited degree, the cockroach may learn a bit;  so too, can a robot if it's programmed correctly.

But a cockroach will never stroll across the kitchen floor because it's curious about what's on the other side of the room.

But a dog might.

So, too, might a human.

I cannot pin it down any better than that, unfortunately, apart from examples-- it's [sentience] kinda like prawn:  you know it when you see it.   

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

In a simulation the main questions are: would we know if we are simulated if our memories are seamless and complete? And, Would we notice if the simulation ends?

Always a question that gives me the creeps. When I think about it, I get dizzy. What if I am just a simulation. Actually I always stop on the thought that if I am a simulation (stopped at death) then pain is not real; makes going to the dentist easier.

Would it matter in the end?  Oblivion is the same regardless if we're in a really complicated virtual reality, or an actual one.  May as well live and act as if it's real.

[Griffin NoName]

A cockroach is insentient-- it moves strictly based on a short list of stimulus-response engines.  But a dog is not; a dog can be sad, happy, curious, inquisitive, bored, lonely, content-- the same sorts of things a human can be, come to think of it.

Assuming that you are right and that cokcroaches do not experience curiosity, inquisitiveness, exactly how would you detect they do not experience sadness, happiness, boredom, lonliness or contentment? Personally I find cockroaches particularly hard to read.  

But a cockroach will never stroll across the kitchen floor because it's curious about what's on the other side of the room.

I don't know. Surely they might. How the hell do we know what goes through their minds?

Amd, no, I don't think it matters if we are only virtual. Except it would be nice to know in terms of experiencing nasty things.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There's nothing but the present, more so if we are simulated.