Space Law, Robot Rights, Metalaw, A.I. Law
Legal philosophy concerning how extraterrestrials should be treated by Earth’s legal system isn't on the top of most academics' priority list. For one, we haven't actually met any aliens yet. There's no proof that life even exists on other planets. Assuming there are aliens, how do we know that humanity will ever come across them, given the vast empty expanses of space? To devote one's life to preparing for a day that may never come might be seen to be something of a waste. That is not to say nobody has ever set their minds to the task. There have been suggestions on what safeguards should be put into place so that we are ready if our extraterrestrial friends decide to pop over for a cup of sugar one day. Ernst Fasan is a man who proposes several legal protections for our space-fairing companions, drawing from Kant's concept of the categorical imperative. E.T.s will undoubtedly possess a high level of reason (building a spaceship takes some serious brainpower), meaning that they are fellow moral agents, to be considered whenever we make decisions. Inevitably, consequences flow from this submission, effecting how morality would operate in the New Space Age. Metalaw is a way of listing those consequences so that lawyers can enforce them. Thus, Fasan created eleven commandments for the post-modern age.
| 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 |
Even assuming Fasan's thesis is rejected, that does not mean we should not consider how aliens and human beings would interact. The line "we come in peace" is iconic for a reason. Nobody wants to nuke a species of super-intelligent individuals from outer space when they common knocking at our door because we will end up being squashed like bugs. Imagine setting a bunch of cavemen loose to fight the US Marine core. Yeah, we're the cavemen. The human race will have to learn to play nice if we want to play nice. Recognises that our new found best-buds are our equals is the first step to ensuring peace and prosperity. Accepting this premise, whether the particulars of Fasan's theory hold up to scrutiny doesn't actually matter. I started this article with the concept of metalaw because the idea does a fantastic job of objectively awarding rights. Why that particular fact matters will come apparent later. For now, just note that objectivity is essential for an interstellar treaty of rights.
An excellent jumping-off point to my main focus is to ask ourselves, 'can a robot be an alien? Can we really build our own E.T.s? A good start in answering that question is looking at what 'extraterrestrial' actually means. I use the word 'extraterrestrial' rather than 'alien' simply because 'extraterrestrial' is simply the more scientifically appropriate description. 'Alien' refers to anything which is not native to another place, anything foreign. That's where the whole term 'illegal alien' comes from. Conversely, extraterrestrial is space specific. I'm an alien if I go to Australia but jumping on a plane and going to the land down under does not make me an E.T.
Using a quick internet search as a base, extraterrestrial means either:
- (Adjective) Of or from outside the Earth or its atmosphere.
- (Noun) A hypothetical or fictional being from outer space.
For current purposes, which definition we use is irrelevant. Our hypothetical being can either be a robotic extraterrestrial or an extraterrestrial robot. Both descriptions give the same result.
Okay, so now what? We know what an extraterrestrial is. A definition still doesn't demonstrate a whole lot. This is where objectivity comes into play. I've claimed that metalaw provides the objectivity necessary for an interstellar treaty of rights. Now I have to prove that claim. Consider:
An extraterrestrial comes to Earth from a distant planet, many lightyears away. The alien is almost identical to homo sapiens in physiology except that the alien is a Cyclops. The rights of the alien are protected by metalaw.
Obviously, that's a no brainer. Cyclopes who walk, talk and eat like us could integrate into society with little difficulty. Hardly groundbreaking work there Fasan. Cyclopes are just a warm-up though.
Continuing from the same illustration, consider:
Another extraterrestrial then arrives on Earth, this time from a world closer to our own. This alien is utterly different from homo sapiens in physiology, being a silicon-based arachnid which reproduces through mitosis. Again, metalaw protects the rights of the alien.
Two factors have changed in this new example. Metalaw does not care about physiology. Arachnids are less like homo sapiens physically, meaning we're less inclined on a biological level to treat them as equals. People flush their neighbourhood spider down the drain all the time. These second aliens also live on a planet a lot closer to Earth. Interstellar proximity seems a lot less relevant to whether we give aliens rights than the fact they have eyeballs coming out of their mouth, but you should note, how close the mother world is to Earth is not a factor in giving aliens rights.
Now imagine Earth gets slightly more crowded:
A third extraterrestrial then arrives on Earth, originating from Mars. This alien is an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), its body on Earth being only a small part of a greater hive mind. Unlike the other aliens, the third alien was made long ago by a long-extinct race of ants. However, the AGI is now entirely independent, possessing total free will. Here too, metalaw protects the alien's rights.
Our third alien is where things get interesting. Biology has gone entirely out the window. At least with the weird silicon arachnid, we can say they're another species. Scientists can explain silicon life through assessing the environmental factors on distant planets. Instead of carbon dioxide, the atmosphere is filled with silicon-dioxide. Nature took a different path; in the end, intelligent life still resulted. Knowing the AGI's history, knowing it was manufactured by another intelligent lifeform, we still have to give the AGI rights. Compared to the last to E.T.s, this AGI isn't even a 'real' alien. Coming from Mars is not that impressive once humanity can start going to Alpha Centuria for their summer holidays. Setting the other examples up first means that we're just going to deal with our misgivings. Physiology was not relevant to the arachnids, so it shouldn't make a difference for the AGI. Cyclopes' live further away than the space-bugs, but that doesn't give them more rights. Living in our solar system does not make the AGI a lesser being. We Earthlings are just going to have to deal with the fact a giant smartphone has rights.
Metalaw can also go beyond farfetched galactic parties. Using a mixture of computing, aerospace engineering and mathematics, we could create a situation where metalaw could have current, real-world applications. Consider:
As part of an experiment, scientists decide to build and program two identical AGI's. The first AGI will be constructed in a secure, undisclosed research facility somewhere on Earth. In contrast, the second AGI will be built on the International Space Station, using only materials collected from nearby asteroids. To confirm their hypothesis that zero gravity construction has no effect on the fun functioning of robots, the scientists even send the programmers to space to program the space AGI, rather than doing so remotely. As expected, the two robots function identically, showing high levels of emotional intelligence and an ability to reason through a range of complex situations.
The only possible distinction between the two robots is their (lack of) geographical location. Metalaw would protect the space AGI because it is technically an alien. In theory, we could do whatever we want to its twin. But since when was 'birthplace' decisive in deciding that slavery is moral. Whether a child is born in London or Hull is not relevant to whether that child should be a slave. Enslaving based on birthplace is what we'd be doing if the AGI was not given the same rights as its sibling. I realise using the word slave comes across as insensitive to the atrocities experienced by millions. What other words could I use to explain the event? One intelligent being would have ownership of another intelligent being. Accepting Metalaw as a basis for humanity's interactions with the galaxy opens up a massive loophole for robot rights activists.
Philanthropists could manufacture robots in orbit, shuttle them down to Earth and let them loose, while others of their kind labour endlessly in factories, never to see the light of day. Without undermining the rationale of Metalaw, humanity is left with two options. Accept restricting the concept to visitors beyond the stars results in injustice or make Metalaw universal. Leaving Earth as the one speck on the galactic map where AGI's have no autonomy is an unsettling prospect. Perhaps someone will explain why AGI's would never come within the ambit of Metalaw. Until that time, I'm convinced. Equality requires all AGI's be protected by Metalaw. If we have to build our own E.T.s to ensure our conscious’ are clean, so be it.