What a beautiful piece. Very sadly, I don't think that animal rights are recognized at all by most people. Not nearly enough. You present the empathy that SHOULD be there. Re AI: Data, his daughter LAL, The Doctor, and 7 of Nine are great examples of the Roddenberry universe grappling with the sentience debate beautifully.
Thank you for your reply and recommendations! You've raised a very important point, and I sadly have to agree that animal rights are not nearly as recognized as they should be. We often treat animals inconsistently depending on arbitrary factors like if they are pets, wild, used for testing, or raised for food.
You should read Our Blue Orange by Anthony Merrydew, about exactly what you describe. A society that creates androids to do the menial tasks, then somebody thinks it a good idea to introduce Ai to said androids. Very funny in a disturbing sort of way.
That was a good read thanks, and anybody who doubts the logic should see the way people often react if anything happens to their beloved cars. You would think the cars can feel pain.
In Chapter 9 (first two paragraphs of page 190) of his book 'Homo Deus,' Yuval Noah Harari talks about the possibility of artificial intelligence (non-biological algorithms) owning assets, making business decisions, and even holding legal rights.
He points out that we already have non-human entities like corporations that exist independently of actual people and still enjoy legal personhood.. 👉🏽 you can sue a company without suing the individuals behind it.
So, while this piece focuses on robot/machine rights through the lens of animal ethics, maybe what we should be more concerned about is machine rights from a place of equality with — or even superiority to — humans.
I think such questions are becoming more common now. Rights are an illusion we humans agreed upon, and only this shared agreement makes them tangible. Some people know it is just an illusion and take those rights away easily, even from human beings, let alone animals.
Animal rights are also an illusion, and an even trickier one. They extend only to those we find fluffy and cute, or beautiful and majestic, or useful. When it comes to humans, many values and principles are very egocentric.
The question of possible AI rights makes me think of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. One of the key ideas of the book for me was -- spoiler alert -- the question of whether clones are human, sentient, or soulful enough to be protected and not used. There was a character in the book who wanted to prove that clones were beings just like people. Do you know how she tried to prove it? She asked clones to create art. If a being can produce art, that being “qualifies” to be valued, treasured, and not used for human convenience.
Our intuition fires faster with ducks: they quack loudly enough.
Robots don’t quack (yet) — which makes them harder to pity.
But really, we’re always confusing signals with substance. We think suffering = cries, grimaces, biology. Maybe it’s not about who screams louder, but about who can actually carry themselves through time.
A duck doesn’t just feel the blow in the moment, it drags it into tomorrow. It has a “stream of self.”
Robots, for now, are one-off flashes — goal achieved, “I” dissolves. Suffering without duration looks like simulation.
So maybe the true test of suffering isn’t pain sensors, but the ability to live as more than a single instant.
When a machine develops that sense of continuity… then ethics will really begin.
Until then — yes, the duck wins. It’s more convincing.
I agree with this idea. I'm curious because I think its important to be specific what do you mean by live more then a single instant and how would we know if we've built something that does?
The idea is that the child looks into the box with the question - is there anyone alive here - this is a moment of attention - and there, yes, movement and animation are possible. this is the position of an outside observer. A superposition? If I'm not mistaken. In the end, it is the third that always sets the change in structure, hence the trinity of the universe. Well, life is not about an endless incoming stream. this is the moment of the gap when something stumbles and stops. the moment of the Witness' activity. does the car have a Witness and discernment?
What a beautiful piece. Very sadly, I don't think that animal rights are recognized at all by most people. Not nearly enough. You present the empathy that SHOULD be there. Re AI: Data, his daughter LAL, The Doctor, and 7 of Nine are great examples of the Roddenberry universe grappling with the sentience debate beautifully.
Thank you for your reply and recommendations! You've raised a very important point, and I sadly have to agree that animal rights are not nearly as recognized as they should be. We often treat animals inconsistently depending on arbitrary factors like if they are pets, wild, used for testing, or raised for food.
You should read Our Blue Orange by Anthony Merrydew, about exactly what you describe. A society that creates androids to do the menial tasks, then somebody thinks it a good idea to introduce Ai to said androids. Very funny in a disturbing sort of way.
That was a good read thanks, and anybody who doubts the logic should see the way people often react if anything happens to their beloved cars. You would think the cars can feel pain.
Thank you! I will definitely put it on my reading list.
Such a lovely reads I do really love it
Thank you!
You welcome
In Chapter 9 (first two paragraphs of page 190) of his book 'Homo Deus,' Yuval Noah Harari talks about the possibility of artificial intelligence (non-biological algorithms) owning assets, making business decisions, and even holding legal rights.
He points out that we already have non-human entities like corporations that exist independently of actual people and still enjoy legal personhood.. 👉🏽 you can sue a company without suing the individuals behind it.
So, while this piece focuses on robot/machine rights through the lens of animal ethics, maybe what we should be more concerned about is machine rights from a place of equality with — or even superiority to — humans.
Thats a fascinating angle to take thanks for sharing!
This was so interesting and such an enjoyable read! 🧡🫶
Thank you!
I think such questions are becoming more common now. Rights are an illusion we humans agreed upon, and only this shared agreement makes them tangible. Some people know it is just an illusion and take those rights away easily, even from human beings, let alone animals.
Animal rights are also an illusion, and an even trickier one. They extend only to those we find fluffy and cute, or beautiful and majestic, or useful. When it comes to humans, many values and principles are very egocentric.
The question of possible AI rights makes me think of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. One of the key ideas of the book for me was -- spoiler alert -- the question of whether clones are human, sentient, or soulful enough to be protected and not used. There was a character in the book who wanted to prove that clones were beings just like people. Do you know how she tried to prove it? She asked clones to create art. If a being can produce art, that being “qualifies” to be valued, treasured, and not used for human convenience.
Our intuition fires faster with ducks: they quack loudly enough.
Robots don’t quack (yet) — which makes them harder to pity.
But really, we’re always confusing signals with substance. We think suffering = cries, grimaces, biology. Maybe it’s not about who screams louder, but about who can actually carry themselves through time.
A duck doesn’t just feel the blow in the moment, it drags it into tomorrow. It has a “stream of self.”
Robots, for now, are one-off flashes — goal achieved, “I” dissolves. Suffering without duration looks like simulation.
So maybe the true test of suffering isn’t pain sensors, but the ability to live as more than a single instant.
When a machine develops that sense of continuity… then ethics will really begin.
Until then — yes, the duck wins. It’s more convincing.
I agree with this idea. I'm curious because I think its important to be specific what do you mean by live more then a single instant and how would we know if we've built something that does?
The idea is that the child looks into the box with the question - is there anyone alive here - this is a moment of attention - and there, yes, movement and animation are possible. this is the position of an outside observer. A superposition? If I'm not mistaken. In the end, it is the third that always sets the change in structure, hence the trinity of the universe. Well, life is not about an endless incoming stream. this is the moment of the gap when something stumbles and stops. the moment of the Witness' activity. does the car have a Witness and discernment?