New human rights laws to prepare for rapid current advances in neurotechnology that may put “freedom of mind” at risk have been proposed in the open access journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy.
All that is required is:
1 the right to life and
2 the right to liberty,
all else can be derived.
Any unreasonable influence is a deprivation of liberty, any level.
Arguably our entire economic system is now an unreasonable influence on individual liberty – and not too many people are able to even consider such a thesis as yet.
This is getting interesting.
The notion of valuing life, life itself having moral value, or property as a notion having any sort of value, all seem to me to be connected.
Choosing to value life and having life as a moral value are tautologically linked.
If one simply looks at the “is”ness of being, of what evolution seems to have selected in practice, across multiple levels and contexts, then there seem to be two major systemic themes present.
In contexts where the greatest threats to individual survival come from members of the same species, then competitive modalities dominate, and in contexts where the greatest threat to individual survival comes from some other source, then cooperative modalities can emerge and dominate.
And as Axlerod showed, raw cooperation is always vulnerable to exploitation, so requires sets of attendant strategies for survival – leading to something of a strategic arms race in a sense.
One can observe this in multiple levels of genetic selection, from the molecular on upwards through cellular, to complex organisms, to social groups and ecosystems as a whole. One can also see it in cultural constructs, at emergent levels. One can see it at individual levels of awareness emerging from both of the others.
I have personally made a choice to value individual life and individual liberty. That is to me sensible, and in accord with the possibility of indefinite life extension which has been a logical possibility for me since 1974.
And I can imagine people making a choice to value some set of experiences higher than life itself, and thus posing a clear and present danger to my continued existence (I have met some). No simple answers possible in such encounters. Being prepared improves probabilities, and isn’t any sort of guarantee, and it is perhaps the best any of us can do.
It seems clear to me, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that valuing life and liberty universally delivers the greatest probability of my living a reasonably long time (thousands of years) and there can be no guarantees.
The notion of property seems to be useful in terms of freedom, and it cannot be used to pose an unreasonable threat to the life or liberty of others. There must be a balance there. Someone who is starving is a different case from someone who is well fed. It gets very complex very quickly.
It seems clear that there cannot be any real security for anyone in competitive environments.
The only real chance any of us has of living a very long time is to create systems that deliver that option to everyone.
Everyone must have the real resources to have a reasonable set of choices available to them, and they need access to that awareness (it is not viable to have the resources and prevent development of the awareness to distinguish and use those resources).
Our systems need to be fundamentally cooperative at the highest level, and to be fundamentally based in the notion of universal abundance of all reasonable requirements.
And some things are genuinely scarce, but not many.
With fully automated systems most things can actually be delivered in universal abundance.
And such systems make no sense in terms of notions like money and profit.
Anything universally abundant has zero market value by definition.
So we cannot ever expect markets, in and of their own internal sets of incentives, to deliver universal abundance of anything.
We need to actively choose such outcomes.