Are We Obliged to give Robots the Moon?

Metalaw, Robot Rights, Space Law, A.I. Law

Metalaw is a theory in legal philosophy, suggesting how the interactions between humans and aliens should be governed by law. Robots are not aliens. Siri did not come to us in a meteorite.

I’ve already addressed why robots should be protected by Metalaw.

Even if you disagree with my logic, H.G Wells’ War of the Worlds demonstrates aliens could be robots. Using science fiction to defend a thesis on how the law should operate is something you will understandably be sceptical about doing. Fiction is written to entertain, not to be scientifically accurate. I’m not relying on the entire plot of the book. Well’s work is just an illustration of the argument that there is nothing inherent to the definition of ‘extraterrestrial’ which demands aliens be biological creatures. Assuming there are robotic aliens, Metalaw will apply to them. To make my argument simpler to follow, I’ve copied in Fasan’s eleven tenets of Metalaw. Although this article won’t make reference to all of the principles laid out, having them handy is probably useful to understand the wider context.

The Tenets Metalaw (1) No partner of Metalaw may demand an impossibility. (2) No rule of Metalaw must be complied with when compliance would result in the practical suicide of the obligated race. (3) All intelligence races of the universe have in principle equal rights and values. (4) Every partner of Metalaw has the right of self-determination. (5) Any act which causes harm to another race must be avoided. (6) Every race is entitled to its own living space. (7) Every race has the right to defend itself against any harmful act performed by another race. (8) The principle of preserving one race has priority over the development of another race. (9) In case of damage, the damager must restore the integrity of the damaged party. (10) Metalegal agreements and treaties must be kept. (11) To help the other race by one’s own activities is not a legal but a basic ethical principle

Now you’ve seen the tenets themselves, I can explain why we are ethically obliged to give robots the moon. The argument begins by considering one particular claim in Metalaw.

(6) Every race is entitled to its own living space.

Fasan’s claim is not difficult to understand. All living things have a right to exist, free from interference. Wildlife conservation works off the same assumption. Humanity can’t turn the Earth into a giant metropolis because this would disregard the rights of lions and whales and snakes to live in their natural environment. I realise the irony in my statement. Stating living things have a right to exist, free from interference does not prove that robots should have rights. Any argument suggesting otherwise is invalid.

That’s were treating robots as aliens come in. It’s still necessary to figure out a way to argue that robots are part of a ‘race’. Nevertheless, at least the ethical obligation cannot be circumvented by the technicality that robots aren’t living. Whether robots are alive, dead or neither is irrelevant because they are rational beings, therefore included in the scope of Metalaw.

Still, why is the moon the only answer? Metalaw requires robots to have their own living space. Tenet 6 says nothing about where that living space has to be. Robots could be given the Sahara desert, Antarctica or Nevada and humanity would still have fulfilled their metalegal obligations. There’s no reason why millions have to be spent launching machines into orbit. This argument is entirely correct. Giving robots complete control over the Atlantic ocean would be sufficient. I don’t endorse this solution because of the potential consequences. Another tenet of Metalaw needs considering.

(5) Any act which causes harm to another race must be avoided.

Allowing robots a home on Earth would constrain the actions of humanity. Climate change, deforestation, resource depletion and overpopulation all have global impacts. Rising sea levels and temperatures affect the whole planet, not just the bits controlled by humanity. Again, comparison to the arguments made by environmentalists is useful in explaining my point. Melting ice caps destroys the natural habitat of the polar bears. Human pollution is a significant cause of this destruction, so we are under a moral obligation to do what we can to reduce pollution. Electric cars, emissions regulations and double glazing all use saving the penguin as a selling point. Really, considering the impacts of our actions on robots restates the whole metropolis idea. We cannot turn Earth into a giant city because homo sapiens are not the only beings living on this planet. Rainforests, woods and savannah have to exist to let a whole host of creatures thrive. In the same vein, making the world uninhabitable harms the interests of robots. Acid rain means machinery would be destroyed. Desert winds would prevent electricity from being generated. AI might not need oxygen, but the environment does affect its existence.

There's also a second reason why giving robots a home on Earth might not be ideal. Another of Fasan's tenets apply.

(4) Every partner of Metalaw has the right of self-determination.

Governing themselves on Earth limits what robots can do. Robots might want to turn the whole planet into a ginormous computer. While human beings are living here, they can't. We still need land to put our homes and schools on. Robots can't remove oxygen from the atmosphere to stop rust because we need oxygen. Nobody wants to asphyxiate. Humanity would also be limited. Resources required for smartphones would be redirected to keep the robot hive operating. The nations of Earth would have to agree to transfer part of their territory to robots. Citizens would have to be relocated to give our machine friends some privacy. Granting robots a home on Earth is therefore not in anyone's best interests.

At this point, I'll make an essential qualification. Helping robots find their own home would not be a legal obligation. Even if the UN agreed to bind planet Earth to Metalaw, the eleventh tenet applies.

(11) To help the other race by one’s own activities is not a legal but a basic ethical principle

Sending robots to the moon would be the robot's own business. No court could force NASA or ESA to divert their shuttles so Alexa can start colonising. Helping androids start out on their own is a moral obligation. Parents help pay their child's college tuition or mortgage not because they have to but because they want to. Judges don't force mothers to help their daughters. In Jones v Padavatton, courts refused to enforce an agreement that the daughter would be financially supported while studying for the Bar. Humanity's obligation to help robots is similar. We create robots, just like parents make their children. Paying for a rocket and some starting supplies is probably the least we can do.

So far, I've argued we should make sure robots have a homeland. However, I’ve still not explained why we have to give the robots the moon. Why not Mars or an asteroid flying deep into the heart of space? Space is filled with millions of planets, countless comets and enough room for robots to build whatever they desire. Giving robots the moon is a bit close to home. I would agree if space were the only relevant factor. Sending robots into the vacuum of space with nothing but hope and prays would condemn them to destruction. Androids don't need food or water; they do need other resources. Wires must be repaired—solar panels breakdown. Eventually, robots must restock. Most comets are out of the running because they're composed of ice. Asteroids would be consumed at an alarming rate. Wherever we put robots needs fuel for their rockets, minerals for their skin and room for expanse. The moon offers all three.

There has been talk of humans colonising the moon. Big domes could be set up to store oxygen, and soil could be imported to grow crops. Robotic habitation of the entire satellite would put an end to those dreams. A final reference to Metalaw overcomes this objection.

(8) The principle of preserving one race has priority over the development of another race.

Tech-billionaires might want to colonise the moon to fuel their egos but saving a conscious being takes priority. Nothing stops Bozo or Musk helping the robots out if they so desire. Painting one's self as the saviour of a super-intelligent machine does have a certain appeal. Whoever helps the machine collective get established will have a place in the electronic history books for eternity. Not being able to put men on the moon permanently is disappointing. Humanity is going have to learn to deal with that loss.

Mars is an alternative choice. Granting robots the moon was a practical decision on my part. Colonising Mars is more manageable than colonising the moon. Mars already has, admittedly contaminated, soil. The red planet is in the habitable zone, with the size necessary to support an atmosphere. Earth's moon has none of these advantages. Preserving one race may have priority over the development of the other; that does not stop us from mitigating our losses.

So, are we obliged to give robots the moon? Yes. We are obliged to give lions the savannahs, whales the oceans and polar bears the ice caps because all life has a right to survive. Likewise, we are obliged to give robots the moon so that their consciousness can be left to thrive. Machines are the epitome of reason. If reason is what yields the right to self-determination, robots undeniably have that right. Today, the duty may seem like science fiction. Tomorrow, it will be a stark reality. When that day comes, hopefully homo sapiens will fulfil their responsibility. Give robots the moon. Watch our creations flourish.