Against Human Exceptionalism: Environmental Ethics and the Machine Question
This paper offers an approach for addressing the question of how to deal with artificially intelligent entities, such as robots, mindclones, androids, or any other entity having human features. I argue that to this end we can draw on the insights offered by environmental ethics, suggesting that artificially intelligent entities ought to be considered not as entities that are extraneous to the human social environment, but as forming an integral part of that environment. In making this argument I take a radical strand of environmental ethics, namely, Deep Ecology, which sees all entities as existing in an inter-relational environment: I thus reject any “firm ontological divide in the field of existence” (Fox W, Deep ecology: A new philosophy of our time? In: Light A, Rolston III H (eds) Environmental ethics: An anthologyBlackwell, Oxford, 252–261, 2003) and on that basis I introduce principles of biospherical egalitarianism, diversity, and symbiosis (Naess A, Inquiry 16(1):95–100, 1973). Environmental ethics makes the case that humans ought to “include within the realms of recognition and respect the previously marginalized and oppressed” ((Gottlieb RS, Introduction. In: Merchant C (ed) Ecology. Humanity Books, Amherst, pp ix–xi, 1999)). I thus consider (a) whether artificially intelligent entities can be described along these lines, as somehow “marginalized” or “oppressed,” (b) whether there are grounds for extending to them the kind of recognition that such a description would seem to call for, and (c) whether Deep Ecology could reasonably be interpreted in such a way that it apply to artificially intelligent entities.
KeywordsMoral responsibility Environmental ethics Deep ecology Artificial intelligence Artificial agency
This paper is part of the project ALLIES (Artificially Intelligent Entities: Their Legal Status in the Future) that has received funding from the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement n° 600371, el Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (COFUND2014-51509) el Ministerio de Educación, cultura y Deporte (CEI-15-17) and Banco Santander.”
- Bostrom, N. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Devall, B., and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology: Living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books.Google Scholar
- Farshchi, S. 2016. Let’s bring Rosie home: 5 challenges we need to solve for home robots. IEEE Spectrum January 13. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/lets-bring-rosie-home-5-challenges-we-need-to-solve-for-home-robots/?utm_source=computerwise&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=011916.
- Fox, W. 2003. Deep ecology: A new philosophy of our time? In Environmental ethics: An anthology, ed. A. Light and H. Rolston III, 252–261. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Gottlieb, R.S. 1999. Introduction. In Ecology, ed. C. Merchant, ix–xi. Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
- Jonas, H. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of ethics for the technological age. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Keller, D.R. 2008. Deep ecology. In Encyclopedia of environmental ethics and philosophy, ed. J. Baird Callicott and R. Frodeman, 206–211. Detroit/New York: Gale Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- ———., ed. 2010. Environmental ethics: The big questions. Chichester: Willey-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Kellogg, P. 2014. Do machines have rights? ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Aurora, http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/92.
- Keulartz, J. 1995. The struggle for nature: A critique of radical ecology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kurzweil, R. 1999. The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2006. The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
- ———.  2001. Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of ecosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2005. Theoretical dimension of deep ecology and ecosophy. In vol. 10 of The selected works of Arne Naess, ed. A. Naess, and A. Drengson, 546–550. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- ———. 2008. The ecology of wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess. Berkeley: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
- Nash, R.F. 1989. The rights of nature: A history of environmental ethics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
- Rothblatt, M. 2014. Virtually human: The promise—and the peril—of digital immortality. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Tavani, H.T. 2011. Ethics and technology: Controversies, questions and strategies for ethical computing. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Willey.Google Scholar
- Yampolskiy, R.V. 2012. Artificial intelligence safety engineering: Why machine ethics is a wrong approach? In Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence, ed. V. Müller, 389–396. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar