Does this mean make them smarter or just force people to let them come in their houses and crap on the floor?

Well, here is my comment. Don't criticize, on an emotional basis, others for having body modifying procedures. What I had done is often done on non-humans animals, and being curious instead of revolted is something I would expect of you. I do feel "uplifted"--and I think dogs and cats in a very real sense are as well, as many who've spayed or neutered will say.

George,

At what point do you address consent? How can we know if these animals want to be augmented? How can we walk up to an elephant and ask, "Say, how'd you like to have two hands?"

Granted, with domesticated animals, we mess with their biology all the time without asking but, I'm just wondering at what point consent matters.

Rawl's theory of social justice sticks in my craw a bit.  Do genetically superior being OWE lesser beings anything?  Having the power of future technologies at your disposal may enable us to do many great things in the future, but do we OWE anybody or anything concern over levelling  the field of social justice?

I can't articulate my objections very well, but Clint Eastwood stated my opinion very well in "the Unforgiven" saying "Deserves.....got nothing to do with it".  

Altruism is well and good.  But am I really "hypocritical" for not helping the less fortunate?  Where does one draw the line on this slippery slope?  Should we gather up all the apes and set them up in low income housing with full time day care, etc. etc?  Should I immediately dispose of all my available income to aid the more needy?

I think perhaps more central to the subject than justice is power.  If we have the power the change the world, should we.  I don't believe we OWE lesser individuals anything via Rawl's concepts of social justice.  But IF we have the power to easily aid others, when does it become a social imperitive?

Ouch.   Fuzzy concepts are troublesome.  Tell you what...give me a couple decades to climb the singularity and I'll figure out what I'll do with all my new technological might.

Mr. F: Doesn't a "consent" issue only really exist when you're doing something to a preexisting being? You didn't consent to be born. The real consideration is "will the entity I'm creating have a life worth living," which is similar but by no means identical.

I'd definitely recommend reading the whole paper before commenting here, since George does indeed address the issue of consent -- the question then becomes, has he made a convincing reasonable case for uplift?

I would say that in a certain context, the answer is yes -- application of personhood theory here suggests that once a group of nonhuman animals is granted personhood status and the rights that accompany that status, any obligations that "we" (as in, those of us with the capacity to provide uplift technology) consider that we have toward other persons would necessarily extend across species lines.

The deeper question is, perhaps, not one of consent but one of judgement -- that is, when is one being capable of determining that another being would be better off in another state?  There's an entire continuum here, from the obvious (being alive is better than being dead, being well is better than having pneumonia) to a much fuzzier region (are certain modes of sensory perception inherently better than others?  is it inherently more "fun" to be one gender rather than another?)  

If the animal uplift question does become a critical issue at some point (which I think it probably will), I do not think that anyone will ever be able to make a convincing case on either the side of "uplift is good" or "uplift is bad".  Rather, very specific interventions will, and must, be considered in light of very individual circumstances.

George asked: "now that I think about it, shouldn't we really be prioritizing those animals stuck in 'dangerous' nature?"

Not necessarily.  Thinking of the situation this way seems reminiscent of the attitude taken by some that before anyone focuses on such things as radical life extension, we need to first make sure that every person on earth has the bare essentials of basic health care.  While in theory, established basics tend to come before "luxuries" or embodiments of newer notions of fulfillment, in practice, things don't tend to work out that way.  For example, new treatments for deadly diseases tend to first benefit the informed dying (who are willing and permitted to volunteer for experimental procedures) and the wealthy, and only reach the general populace later on.  This isn't necessarily ideal, but it is sometimes the only way to actually get something to happen.  Any procedure, whether it be livesaving or life-enhancing, must first be tried on a few prior to being made available to the many -- for the sake of experimental observation, data collection, and sheer logistic feasibility.  

In addition, the animals stuck in "dangerous" nature, provided their preferred habitats are intact, are actually in a much better position as far as survival capacity goes than the first group (the displaced creatures) -- so your initial impulse seems most correct, since while animals in "dangerous" nature *may* suffer and die, animals who have been displaced and have no ecosystem that suits them *will* suffer and die.

Okay, I read the paper and the section on consent. I'm still a bit suspicious of it. Even if we augmented a small number of creatures, would they really be good spokespeople? The process of uplift might render their early memories and experiences meaningless to them.

These supercanines, supercephalopods and supercetateans might have just as hard a time understanding ordinary dogs, squids, octopi and dolphins as we do. They may not see themselves as similar enough to act as spokepeople. Which throws us into the quandry: If they didn't ask for it, should we give it to them?

Eschew,

Yes, consent really only applies to preexisting beings. These animals are preexisting. If they can't understand our question and we can't understand their answer, how can consent exist?

One of the things I'm worried about is that there might be a kind of cultural inertia that develops around this practice of uplift. If most people think nothing of uplifting entire species, without asking the species if they want it, won't that make easier for people to dismiss dissenters who are augmented against their will? "What are you complaining about? It worked well for the dogs. See?"

I think it's very important that choice be preserved. I don't know where that leaves the animals that can't understand the choice being offered. I guess we should leave them alone.

Still--on the other hand, we preform medical research on animals all the time without asking them. Many of us seem generally comfortable with this (I'm pretty comfortable with it despite the foregoing.). It's better them that take the risks than us, right?

Given that much of the research into augmentation technologies will probably have to be done on animals first, I guess a select few animals will be uplifted anyway. It seems unavoidable. Thinking of Flowers for Algernon, Bookworm, Run! and a few other stories here.

These are tough questions.

Very interesting paper George,

I liked it. I understand what your trying to do. I can see merit in this. As a bleeding heart liberal I like to see all things and all species be treated with respect and dignity.

However (You knew that was coming right :)

This has the potential to bring about conflict on a never before immagined level.

Some animals would probably be fine with most of the applications we have worked with them. I doubt a "seeing eye dog" would begrudge thier place in life. Or the fat-tabby household cat has had a pretty good run of it in our western world, however, some animals might take objection with thier lot in our world. And how we treted them in the past...

So, a bovine gets uplifted, learns to read and then proceeds to see how we've treated her species for the last 1000 years. How is she going to feel as she passes a McDonnalds? A Baseball game? The deep-rooted cultural impact of Southern BBQ. I'm sure the milking part would pass.. most cows begged to be milked...  These animals have not had the millenia of human experience. How would they even begin to handle thier emotions and higher thought process?

How would you like to awaken (A'la Matrix) only to learn that for your entire existence on this earth, a race farmed you as a food-source, altered your DNA to suit thier needs, and after it was done feeding on your insides, wore your skin as a status symbol?

I know I'd be pissed.

I know I'd be looking for some payback. However, I would be tempered by my knowledge of human history, what a war can bring, the knowledge of humans using animals to try to improve human lives. I know firsthand the emotional toll of human loss. Years of human understanding, philosophy and sociology would be a part of my understanding of the situation.

A cow has never had to relate to a bloody war, or learn the art of diplomacy.

How would a cow handle the complex emotions that uplifing would bring? The Nukak at least were human, had human emotions and thier own culture. Cows do not, and they will not untill uplifting.

Now.. I don't for an instant think we shouldn't do it. Not for a nanosecond.

They could easily become more forgiving, more compationate and far more HUMANE than human beings! (I'm convinced that this will be the case with Strong AI).

I'm saying we don't know, but we sure as hell owe it to ourselves and other species to find out.

Mr. Farlops:

>These animals are preexisting. If they can't understand our question and we can't understand their answer, how can consent exist?

Okay, maybe I'm operating under bad assumptions. Does the mechanism of uplift consist of modifying an already living animal, or genetically manipulating a zygote to produce a new, uplifted animal? If the former, I guess you're right. If the latter, there is no preexisting conscious being. Other members of the same species don't count.

oortog:

>These animals have not had the millenia of human experience. How would they even begin to handle thier emotions and higher thought process?

Presumably these would be close enough to those of humans that the millennia of human tools for coping would be applicable.

>A cow has never had to relate to a bloody war, or learn the art of diplomacy.

Ditto. It's not like a cow can't learn from human history. Hell, being enhanced with human DNA and brought up in human culture, the cow will mentally be more human than anything else.

War is unlikely for the sole reason that there would be just a few cows (although they could recruit some militant animal rights activists, I suppose). If a desire to kill humans were a problem, it's not like it wouldn't be discovered quickly.

I'm curious as to why people keep bringing up cows -- unless there's something I missed in the paper, I don't recall cows as being one of the primary "candidates" for animal uplift.  Rather, the potential animals discussed included the Great Apes, dolphins, and elephants, since these creatures are perhaps most "human-like" already in terms of social behavior and apparent cognitive style and ability.  

I imagine that the criteria here is less along the lines of "which animals are already particularly *advanced* so as to indicate the potential that they might benefit from, and appreciate, uplift" and more along the lines of, "which animals are already 'human-like' enough such that we might be able to, in addition to granting personhood rights to these individuals, make a case that they might appreciate the same things that we humans might."  

Evolution has optimized different sets of creatures differently, and obviously humans do not represent the ultimate pinnacle of evolutionary success in all respects (we're outlived by parrots and anemones, after all!) -- so we wouldn't be compelled to make creatures that are already very different from us *more like us* in any sort of uplift scenario.  My impression is that the uplift question applies to creatures who are already demonstrably human-like in various aspects of behavior, communication, and cognition.  In other words, not cows or sea turtles or goldfish.

It's also important to acknowledge that the modern cow represents what might be considered a "de-evolution" from the cow's potential point of view.  Modern cows are the result of large-scale selective breeding programs that select not for intelligence, keen senses, or the capacity for emotional depth, but for flavor (or milk production capacity).  If anything, I'd suggest that the farming, meat, and selective livestock breeding program represents a far greater moral problem than that posed by offering an advanced voice synthesizer to a chimpanzee!  I do anticipate that sentient beings will eventually move away from eating flesh from animals that were once alive (and toward consumption of lab-cultured steaks and such) and in that case, the modern cow will likely become extinct for all intents and purposes.

There is an assumption here that intelligence is better for happiness.  I think in many cases this is probably true, but ofcourse there will be exceptions.

Is human level intelligence the only true motivation here or is general increase also deemed preferable?  Is there a truly a cutoff point here?  Are we only concerned with uplifting Apes, dophins, whales, pigs, and maybe dogs?  Should the meter slide further?  Are we prepared to uplift misquitoes to bird level intelligence?  (picturing organized squardons at my picnics) Dung beetles uplifted to kitten intelligence?  (picturing a beetle with a midlife crisis)

Cat and dogs living together....it'll be anarchy.

Seriously, does anyone think these neo-sapiens will have much identity tied up into what they once were?  They will be truly new creatures, not merely upgrades.  

All I know for sure is that when my gut flora and bacteria organize a wildcat strike, I'm not gonna be very happy about it.

Well, I'm still going to go on about the cows :)

I'm going to wax philisophical about this :)

First off, Nydra, George, why cows you ask? Because when I think of Animal uplifting, I CAN'T Help but think of Milliways, "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe".

Your dinner could walk up to the table, describe its most delicious parts and then head to the back for a quick slaughter and grilling. Now thats fresh!

To be honest, I think Adams was making a point with that. The cow has been / is the most abused species EVER in human history.

I want my uddered bretheren to LITTERALY throw off thier yolk of opression! Be free my cud-chewing friends!

Seriously...

George, you can't just limit it to a select few species. Will we uplift just one species of primate? What makes them special? Is it TRULY "All Together now" or is it just "All the ones we like". Most of us don't consider a squid to be cute and cuddly. I prefer mine pan-fried with some spicy peppers and olive-oil. But does that give us the right to deny them higher-thinking?

What we do for one, we must do for all, to the best of our ability. From the mighty lion to the maggot. Otherwise we are no better than a Conservative. We are picking and choosing. We are effectivly cherrypicking who we deem to be worthy and we are leaving the rest to wallow in the filth and litteraly die (In a post singularity world). Just like the US government did with Katrina victims. I want no part of that.

I really want to take a moment tho in all seriousness to thank Goerge for this concept.

George, seriously you have picked one fantastic thought exercise. It really gets people engaged and vocal. It really makes us THINK of the promise, morales and consequences of what we can do once we have the power to do it. Its alot easier to engage people with this topic than with the more pressing discussions of machine inteligence. In many ways, both topics have similar arguments. More people can relate to this because animals are so TANGIBLE. So.. Kudos man, good concept.

Anyway, I for one am sticking up for the cows. If any species deserves to be uplifted.. its them.

oortog: You make some good points, but you also seem to be thinking from a bit of an anthropocentric perspective.  Humans do not represent the pinnacle of evolution -- we're only one possible direction in which it could go, and it's a mistake to assume that every animal on the planet would rather be like us, given the choice.  The point of uplift would NOT be to eliminate animal diversity and turn every living thing into a human, but rather, to extend assistance (technological and memetic) to creatures that we can *already* identify with to some extent.  This has nothing to do with certain animals being cute -- it has to do with certain animals already sharing certain evolved traits and characteristics with humans, to the extent that it seems clear we ought to consider them "persons" and extend all rights granted other persons to those animals.

I don't think we can even assume that a squid doesn't already have "higher" thinking.  It might think more "highly" than we do in some ways we can't even imagine, and it would be arrogant to assume that we humans have it all figured out and that any creature, given the choice, would choose to be just like us.  We have absolutely no way of knowing this, and I think it would be a mistake to act as if we do.  Death and suffering are unfortunate, but it gets really tricky when one starts considering things like gut bacteria -- are we obligated to attempt to bring every E. Coli in our intenstine toward a human-like self-awareness?  

Do we need to make every bacterium immortal in order to be ethical creatures?   And what about individual cells that comprise animal bodies?  If we uplift a bacterium, why not a skin cell or muscle cell?  If everything was entirely autonomous, could organisms even maintain structural integrity?  Does any organism have the right to exist at all if it means other organisms of any sort must experience discomfort?

And if we managed to make every animal life form on the planet self-aware and capable of composing sonatas and doing calculus, would plants be next?  And after plants, would we need to start thinking about offering sentience to rocks or water molecules?  (You can see how ridiculous it starts to get at this point -- a line definitely must be drawn somewhere, lest we risk paralyzing ourselves!)

There comes a point at which endless philosophical deliberation about vastly far-future scenarios becomes counterproductive -- I think it's best to start from where we are now and move forward realistically along visible avenues of progress.  I think it's fine to talk about radically extending human lives and offering personhood rights to chimps and dolphins, but once we've established that these things are a good idea, we'd best start working on making them a reality rather than pondering the intellectual well-being of a mosquito.

I'm a big fan of this work by George and think it's important to begin serious discussions about animal uplifting, because :

One ideological barrier towards progress is the feeling or belief that worthwhile goals are too lofty or long-term to be rewarding or feasible.

I agree that this is a very chewy topic for discussion!

Anyway, here are a few more of my contributions.

We'll have to confront these issues eventually because many of the augmentation technologies discussed at this site will probably tried in medical research animals to start with. Cetaceans, apes and other large brained mammals will probably the first and easiest for us to augment.

Depending on how far it goes, it might get very political. We might have a situation where some uplifted cetaceans and apes demand we leave the rest alone and others will demand that we work harder to uplift the rest.

Regardless how it pans out, there's going to be a lot controversy one way or another.