Volume 2, Issue 2
2nd Quarter, 2007
Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D.
Page 5 of 7
A good case can be made that all life is really infovitology because it is information processing, sharing and transcending behaviors that make something alive. Nevertheless, up until now, all vitological life has been expressed via biological substrate, and hence there is utility to understanding the impact of that biovitological medium on the infovitological message. Similarly, we are at a cusp of time when autonomous information processing, sharing and transcending capability will be incarnated into computational hardware. That hardware will impose its unique limitations on the life process, and hence there is value in understanding cybervitology as a category of life. Ultimately, however, information processing, sharing and transcending capability will become platform independent by achieving the ability to reorder atoms at will using nanotechnological tools. This will be the advent of truly infovitological life.
One can also envision categories of transontological life such as: transbiological life (mostly biological but also cybernetic and/or informational) and transcybernetic life (mostly cybernetic but also biological and/or informational) for many years to come. There is substantial work for scientific researchers to do in the years ahead to categorize organic, inorganic and software entities in accordance with their relative capabilities for autonomy, coopetency, and transcendence. In this regard, an important sub-field of protovitology should be recognized, which deals with the characteristics of entities having some but not all of the ACT features.
There is also substantial work for ethicists, lawyers, sociologists, policymakers and theologians to do in the years ahead to assay the relative rights or protect-able interests of entities in accordance with their ACT capabilities. At the end of the day, though, it should not be the organic or inorganic, or biological or informational, nature of life that determines how it is respected, any more than it should be the gender or exterior appearance of a person that determines their fate. Categorization of life forms is useful for many purposes, but one of those purposes should not be the denial of the privileges and responsibilities accorded to living beings.
One of England’s leading medical ethicists, John Harris, has observed[11] that “a right means there exists valid moral reasons for not denying something.” For example, a right to life means there are moral valid reasons not to deny someone their life. One such reason would be that if people could have their lives taken from them, then all society would feel unsafe, insecure and unpleasant. On the other hand, if a condemned murderer is said to forfeit his right to life, it is because there are not morally valid reasons to prevent his execution. Everyone will not feel insecure because everyone is not a condemned murderer.
What does this have to do with vitology, the study of life? John Harris’ formulation helps us to see that the right to life should not be withheld from cybernetic or informational life because there are valid moral reasons to respect these forms of life. In addition to the argument of the preceding paragraph (which biovitological life forms might dismiss on ontological grounds), there is the following strong argument. Ending something that is making the world a better place makes the world a worse place for all. Consequently, there are morally valid reasons to not deny life to a cybernetic or software being that demonstrates Autonomy, Coopetency, and Transcendence.
[T]he right to life applies to all vitology. | If such entities are making the universe a more satisfying place, one in which some of us are at a little less risk of random harm, |
Footnotes
[11] Harris, J. (1985) The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics, Routledge: London
[12] The empirical determination of vitological numbers can be accomplished in at least two different ways. First, it is possible to do a “time and motion” analysis of a being, or enough beings to be representative of a species. Such a time and motion analysis will result in a percentage of time allocated to components of the vitological index. Alternatively, an assessment can be made of the percentage of time that either the most simple living entity we know spends on components of the vitological index. Then all other beings and species can be assigned a multiple of that value based on how much more time they spend.
[13] One reason to have such a broadly enumerated scale such as 1-1,000,000 is that there is such a plethora of different species. There are already over one million differently named insect species, plus about another 600,000 named non-insect species, ranging from 270,000 named plant species to 4,650 named mammal species. However, it is estimated that named species represent only about 10% of the currently existing species, with millions of insect species, hundreds of thousands of bacteria, nematode and virus species, and tens of thousands of protozoan species deduced yet to be discovered. While the industrialization of natural ecosystems is reducing this species’ count at an unprecedented rate, new non-biological species of life, such as computer hardware and software systems, are now being created at a very fast rate.