On the transition of Ethics and Law
As an integral part of human history predating civilization itself, human societies have existed for the past 10,000 years. The social contract — which creates the rules, customs, ethics, and principles of the society concerned with the interactions between its individual members—has undergone a journey of its own over these many millennia.
What is fascinating to observe, however, is the transition that the concept of law, as well as the underlying ethics that belong to a society have undergone. From Hammurabi’s code — the earliest recorded insights that we have — to the Geneva Convention and the UN Human Rights Charter, humanity’s journey as a whole is a rich field to explore.
But is the UN Human Rights Charter an accurate observation of ethical guidelines on what the people of the world really agree and follow? Or is it mere idealization of what we hope to achieve? The world is a large and dynamic place, and even after the massive amounts of integration that has been achieved through digitization, ethics and law are rooted deeply in the cultural framework on a local scale. Political and religious polarization also play a huge role in this, and unlike the predictions of many that a more globalized world would bring with it uniformity, the converse has been observed in many cases. Even though the cyber verse has strong reactionary forces acting on such issues, they need not reflect the reality on the ground.
But why does it matter? Because some issues — the so called major issues — in ethics and the corresponding laws have always been constant across the globe. Murder is murder; it is a crime, a punishable offense, and carries with it the strictest punishment in the relevant jurisdiction. Of course there are variations on how this process of judgement is carried out, but in presence of sufficient proof there is no debate on what constitutes killing an individual.
Let us take the example of a civil matter next. We know that the concept of owning a property is something that is well established in all of the civilized world. Of course, whether you can own a specific type of property is up to interpretation and debate across regions and countries, but the idea of owning people has been settled as an illegal and criminal activity some time ago.
What happens, however, when we manage to develop a truly sentient artificial intelligence? Does deleting its code — killing it, from one point of view — constitute as murder? If it is sentient enough to compete and replace humans, does the idea owning such an entity not constitute slavery?
The aim of the essay is not to explore the answers to these questions here; it is to question the framework we have for dealing with any such issue that is bound to arise in the coming decades of society. Are our current organizations equipped to formulate such frameworks when the time comes? Do the relevant and appropriate organizations even exist yet? And assuming that they exist and are equipped to formulate such frameworks, can they actually do it in time to have an actual effect on the implementations they are meant to target?
An example that comes to mind is of the CRISPR babies that were created in China. Enough discourse had happened in academia on the idea of editing the human genome when the technology was non-existential. The idea was not new. When the technology was created, it was evident that such an application was possible. Yet, when the news broke that the deed had been actually done, the reactions from the scientific community were one of surprise and alarm.
Another is the example of cryptocurrency and the lagged response that governments across the globe had to deal with the legal issues surrounding it. Some outright banned its use, some allowed complete use as a legal tender. The legal and ethical grey areas surrounding cryptocurrencies are very valid and required proper debate and discussion. But the authorities were not equipped — or inclined — to deal with such an issue and its impact. The effect it ended up having was amplifying the volatility of the markets surrounding these instruments, as well as their liquidity.
It is clear that the state of readiness we have on such issues is not up to standard. Why does it matter? Because the impact such a technology can have is beyond revolutionary. As a global society, it is in our interest to formulate a policy to regulate such technologies.
Elon Musk, amongst many others, are now actively trying to breach the frontiers of outer space and colonize Mars. Up until now, any and all endeavors have been purely scientific in nature. What happens when that changes? When we have private entities with access to resources on another planet, what exactly is the legal status of the land they are occupying? Do we end up with a winner gets all situation, or do we as a species decide on another approach?
Antarctica is a prime example of this. There exists an international agreement to only occupy Antarctica for scientific and research purposes, but countries still have lain claims to land on the continent, often overlapping in boundaries. Its a theoretical claim, only held back in being implemented due to Antarctica being a frozen desert. In the current geopolitical world, especially the events of the last decade, can we really trust the nation-states of the world to act civilly?
On the flip side, the harmonious approach of the scientific community is not a clear cut solution. So far, post the second world war, the scientific community has moved together in a uniform harmony. Of course, secret research is conducted by governments everywhere, but the sentiment driving nearly every scientist is to contribute and grow the collective pool of human knowledge. They have, more or less, a uniform code of ethics and a vision for the future. That does not mean, however, that it is something suitable to be framed into a government. And if the interplanetary colonists end up creating such a government, that will lead to a completely distinct socioeconomic culture from any on here on Earth.
So far, we explored the various issues that accompany the evolution of human society in the future. We as a species have adapted our ethical outlooks and legal frameworks quite commendably in the past. But now, we are reaching the point where the advancements in technology are progressing at a pace greater than what the governments of the world can formulate regulations and frameworks for. It is no longer practical to work on problems after they arrive, but rather start on and finalize solutions to such issues while they are still theoretical.
For the first time in recorded history, it is possible for us as a species to actually co-ordinate on such issues in a meaningful manner. No development of laws or ethics are truly local anymore; no debate is limited to geography or culture. Whether it is morally right to take part in a debate of another sovereign state is a question for another time, but the point is that it can be done, and be done quite effectively. Governments and corporations are now needing to actively intervene and control the narratives to curb criticisms on social media. We have the means; we have the need. All that is left now is to actually begin.
