{"id":1522,"date":"2014-03-29T17:31:56","date_gmt":"2014-03-29T21:31:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=1522"},"modified":"2014-03-29T20:18:08","modified_gmt":"2014-03-30T00:18:08","slug":"do-robots-deserve-the-right-to-unionize","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=1522","title":{"rendered":"Do Robots Deserve the Right to Unionize?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Posted to TNet: Mon, June 10, 2013 <\/a>| By:\u00a0B. J. Murphy<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1979, sociologist Prof. Albert J. Szymanski once said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe energy for change comes from the emotions. It comes from feelings of frustration that arise when people\u2019s needs are not met. If people were computers that could be programmed to do anything their masters wanted, there would be no pressure for change, even if some computers were treated much worse than others\u2026\u00a0<\/i>But people have physical and emotional needs that cannot be met in a class society which gives power and wealth to some at the expense of others.\u201d (Szymanski,\u00a0Sociology<\/i>, p. 321)<\/p>\n

And while I certainly agree in the context of his time period, as both a socialist and Transhumanist, living during the technological era of the 21st century, I\u2019m forced to look back on this quote and ask myself: But what if computers had emotions? What if they became sentient? Would they not then have the same emotional drives to enjoy the fruits of their labor as their fellow Human workers? Would they not have the right to unionize and fight for better working conditions?<\/p>\n

Before getting into the question of whether or not a robot has the right to collectively bargain, I feel that it\u2019s necessary to first address consciousness, our search for sentient beings, and our means of defining sentience. These are, after all, the ultimate questions and, consequently, ultimate drivers of how we\u2019ll answer the question of whether or not robots deserve the right to unionize alongside their fellow workers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It comes down to, I believe, the old philosophical concept: \u201cCogito ergo sum.\u201d The phrase\u2019s definition has certainly changed since Descartes\u2019 era and the publishing of his magnum opus\u00a0Discourse on the Method<\/i>. \u2018I think, therefore I am\u2019 no longer applies to Man in the gender-sense. In fact, it no longer solely applies to mankind in general. What followed mankind was a good portion of the rest of the animal kingdom.<\/p>\n

And now, during our current era of exponentially advancing technology, A.I., and digital autonomy, we\u2019re forcing ourselves to rethink again the old 17th-century philosophical concept in order to brace ourselves for the next coming self-aware being \u2013 the robot.<\/p>\n

But then, where Descartes differentiated conscious thought from the behavior of automata, how then will we approach the question of automata-thought when said automata acquire sentience \u2013 self-conscious awareness? Obviously the robot would begin by trying to prove its sentience to the court via the Turing Test. How we would approach a robot seeking approval and validation of what it already knows is an entirely different question. What demands would we necessitate? How constrained should said robot be to be viewed positively under the court\u2019s biased observation?<\/p>\n

Anthropocentrism or Anthropomorphism?<\/b><\/p>\n

I ask this because, even to this day, we remain fixated on searching for sentience under the \u201cmicroscope\u201d known as ourselves \u2013 our own species. We convince ourselves that there lives a dichotomy between our observations, and the true answer of our curiosity will lie under one side of that dichotomy or the other. This false dichotomy is between Anthropocentrism and Anthropomorphism.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a very thin line between Anthropocentrism and Anthropomorphism, I\u2019ve come to believe. Where the former regards Humans as being the most important sentient being on the planet, the latter still looks to Humans as being the model which everything else should extol and be like. In the end, whatever route you take in your view of all that is nonhuman,\u00a0Homo sapiens<\/i>\u00a0remains the dominant model to \u201ceverything a species should be.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whenever we search for sentient beings, I believe it\u2019s best that we leave out anything \u201cHuman\u201d in our search and instead fixate on consciousness itself. \u201cCogito ergo sum\u201d should be the dominant means of searching for sentience. As mentioned above, since the coining of that phrase by Descartes, its very definition has changed several times \u2013 from including white women, to anyone who wasn\u2019t white, to even several different nonhuman animal species. Meaning, humans weren\u2019t really the \u201cfirst conscious beings\u201d, thus not necessarily a model of what \u201cshould be\u201d.<\/p>\n

I fear that, when automata become the next sentient beings we discover, our fixations on either Anthropocentrism or Anthropomorphism will consequently lead us to never truly accept their sentience until they\u2019re in every way like us \u2013 aging, suffering, biologically limited slabs of meat. Essentially, we\u2019d become the next oppressors.<\/p>\n

In fact, it reminds me of the famous science-fiction film\u00a0Bicentennial Man<\/i>. In this film an android known as Andrew is first taken up as a serving droid for a rich family. As time goes by, this family begins recognizing Andrew\u2019s self-independence, resulting in their teaching him all that they can, giving him a bank account, and eventually his freedom.<\/p>\n

Several years later, Andrew falls in love with a future relative of the family he once served. During this process, Andrew comes across a bio-robotics engineer named Rupert Burns. Together, through Rupert\u2019s engineering skills and Andrew\u2019s substantial income from the carpentry designs he did several years back, they\u2019re able to mimic almost everything that is to be Human and attach it to Andrew. But the one thing that drives Andrew most of all is the woman he fell in love with. And in order to officiate their wish for marital status, Andrew must go before the court and have them recognize his sentience.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately his attempts fail, with the judge leaving behind a very staggering comment: \u201cSociety can tolerate an immortal robot, but we will never tolerate an immortal human. It arouses too much jealousy, too much anger. I\u2019m sorry Andrew, but this court cannot, and will not, validate your humanity.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a result, Andrew goes against his love for life and, with the help of his friend Rupert, takes the step of achieving mortality. Several years later, Andrew makes one last attempt, having aged considerably and on the brink of death.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

President Marjorie Bota:<\/b>\u00a0Andrew Martin.<\/p>\n

Andrew Martin:<\/b>\u00a0I\u2019ve always tried to make sense of things. There must be some reason I am as I am. As you can see, Madame Chairman, I am no longer immortal.<\/p>\n

President:<\/b>\u00a0You have arranged to die?<\/p>\n

Andrew:<\/b>\u00a0In a sense I have. I am growing old, my body is deteriorating, and like all of you, will eventually cease to function. As a robot, I could have lived forever. But I tell you all today, I would rather die a man, than live for all eternity a machine.<\/p>\n

President:<\/b>\u00a0Why do you want this?<\/p>\n

Andrew:<\/b>\u00a0To be acknowledged for who and what I am, no more, no less. Not for acclaim, not for approval, but the simple truth of that recognition. This has been the elemental drive of my existence, and it must be achieved, if I am to live or die with dignity.<\/p>\n

The court informs Andrew that it will need some time to consider everything said before reaching a conclusion. Knowing this, Andrew waits despite his life slipping away more imminently than ever. While on his death bed, next to the love of his life, the court reaches a decision: Andrew is officially recognized as Human. But before Andrew is to hear those words, he dies.<\/p>\n

This is a very sad ending, in my opinion – to see Andrew thrive due to the people around him recognizing his sentience and love of life, only to then be shot down by a biased court until he becomes every bit of Human, including our species\u2019 mortality. It\u2019s also worrisome whether or not a similar scenario will occur in our near future, when a robot seeks to prove to the court his\/her sentience by passing the Turing Test. Even if\/when the robot passes the test, will the court be open-minded enough to accept the results? Or will the robot be forced to take on a correlating path to that of Andrew Martin? As Andrew would say quite often throughout the film, \u201cThis will not do.\u201d<\/p>\n

Robots Collectively Bargaining<\/b><\/p>\n

As shown in the film mentioned above, where the common layperson recognized Andrew\u2019s sentience, and thus Andrew\u2019s deserving of every right humans themselves attain, the court refused to accept that society was ready for robots to attain recognition of their sentience, let alone basic rights, due to Andrew being immortal. While this certainly brings up other important questions, like how courts or governments will react to our species achieving \u201cimmortality\u201d \u2013 or better termed, indefinite life extension \u2013 for now we\u2019ll stick with the question of robots and their attainment of basic living and working rights.<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0Article 23 of\u00a0The Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/i><\/a>, it is said:<\/p>\n