The Speculist

Where to begin?

Mr. Parker's assertions regarding the genesis of human rights is profoundly flawed (possibly as a means to elicit comment). Basicly, rights are an artificial distinction (a position) possessed by those who have the capacity to successfully assert them. The concept of "equal rights" is a further artificial distinction to expand the concept beyond the individual level (create a group position). The even further artificial distinction of "human rights" creates the purely arbitrary argument that those without the capacity to claim something nevertheless possess that thing - a dubious proposition at best, however generous of intent.

As long as fishes, meat and horses remain unable to claim equality, why would you accept such an assertion by others Phil?

Mr. Parker's comment regarding our potential for accurately measuring capability strikes me as being even more hubristic then the current obsession over climate control. An inability to accurately identify the influencing factors of either proposition arbitrarily rules out any serious hope of confidently modifying or predicting the outcome resulting from any action.

As you can likely tell, I remain unconvinced tat the arrival of AI will automatically imply an ability to accurately identify the influences of truely chaotic systems, weather and human personality being only two examples of such. Just to involve the religious among us, even God doesn't claim such capability for himself - why else advance the argument of "free will" otherwise? Observing is not the same as predicting and prediction is an atribute credited to him by others, as I understand it.

And now, having instigated a comment war on your site, I'm off to work for another night. :)

Love and kisses, guys.

Here is my take on rights. Rights are an emergent property of human societies at a certain level of advancement. Societies are inherently organizations of individuals. All organizations have rules that keep the organization in order. The concept of law, right, and duty emerge out of these organizational rules. The idea is, of course, that if I am expected to obey the law and perform certain civil duties then it will be necessary that I am guaranteed certain rights. This is simply how an advanced society is organized because it is most efficient and it works (i.e. people don't try to overthrow the government when there rights are upheld). In such a society every member of the society is guaranteed rights so long as those members perform their duties, i.e. obey the law. This guarantee is extended even to those who are stupid or otherwise infirm. If we did not uphold the rights of the weak then the concept of duty would fall to the wayside and justice and order would erode.
So the conclusion is that any entity that enters into society should be given duties and rights. This means that only those entities intelligent enough to participate in community could be given rights.

Will --

...rights are an artificial distinction...possessed by those who have the capacity to successfully assert them.

I also think we reach a point where we have the capacity to assert them on behalf of others.

As long as fishes, meat and horses remain unable to claim equality, why would you accept such an assertion by others Phil?

Well, I didn't say "equal rights." An infant is unable to assert that it has any rights, but I still believe that it does. The right to grow up, for example. But not the right to vote. The whole tiresome argument rests on the question of whether a human embryo has the right to "grow up" from conception.

Let's stay with the slightly less contentious issue of animal rights. In fact, let'stake it down to plants. Do trees have rights? They do not. Trees do have beauty and inegrity and a sort of built-in will to survive. If I have the choice between cutting down a tree to build something and using nano-fabricated cellulose building material made directly from soil and sunlight, I will choose the latter because I like trees and would rather not kill them if I had a choice. I'm not saying that the tree has any rights; I'm saying that if others argue that it does, I won't make a fuss seeing as I get my building material anyway and am generally disinclined to kill trees to begin with.

Same goes for fish, cows, and horses.

Micah --

So the conclusion is that any entity that enters into society should be given duties and rights. This means that only those entities intelligent enough to participate in community could be given rights.

With that definition in mind, what I am talking about is probably not "rights" per se but rather recognized value and a duty to protect.