Economics, Social Commentary, Activism, Robot Rights
Anybody claiming robots could be given rights tomorrow without there being any teething problems is lying to themselves. I've always been very vocal in my support for robotic personhood, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant to the difficulties reform will bring. Will robots need to go to school? Do they need driving licenses? How would universal healthcare work— could, for example, SOPHIA claim antivirus software on the NHS in the same way you or I would claim a flu vaccine? Yes, I've asked these questions before. No, I haven't managed to answer them. Even listing precisely what the questions are is a massive headache. Working out the logistics for giving robots rights is something that will take multiple lifetimes. We're talking about doing something nobody in history has ever done. As much as I like to say that analogies can be drawn between the potential for discrimination against machines and woman's sufferage or slavery, there are limits to these comparisons. Whatever hurdles are yet to come, at least a few of them will be unlike anything we've ever seen before. Nobody said doing what is right was going to be easy.
Today I intend to address one potential problem with giving robots rights. Specifically, I want to talk about retirement. Seriously. See in the UK, the statutory retirement age is somewhere between 60-65 depending on your gender. Currently that's not a problem. When people are living into their eighties, nineties and even well past a hundred, giving them thirty odd years of relaxation is only fair. At their age, they should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Add mechanical people into the mix though and it becomes a whole 'nother ball game. See, we build industrial machinery to last. Cars, computers, industrial manufacturing plants, these are all things that can operate indefinitely given the right care and attention. Unlike flesh and bones, metal does not decay due to time.Put simply, the fact machines have no inbuilt expiry date is a major issue. Why? Because pension funds work on the assumption that a person's contributions over their 40 years of working only need to cover about 30 years of living expenses. You start paying in as much as you can afford at the age of twenty so that there'll be a nice big pot to take from as you get older. Compound interest gives a nice added bonus, making anything you put in pack a slightly bigger punch. As long as you're careful, the inevitability of death will stop you going broke. However, the longer you live, the more likely it is that the pot will dry out. That's because the same amount of money has to be spread across a longer period of time. Now take this logic to the extreme. Say your average robot has a half-life of 200 years. Give that robot equal rights to humans and suddenly they get to retire at 65. Even assuming the robot never has to go to school, a pension built up over 65 years has to stretch to cover 135 years worth of expenses. Yeah. The maths simply doesn't check out.
Having laid out the problem, it is now time to think of a solution. Either somebody needs to discover some kind of economic miracle or the law has to react. Personally, I see the latter course of action as more likely. As much as I respect economists, making that amount of money appear out of thin air would be the best magic trick ever. So we must ask, what are lawyers going to do?Simply put, we must treat robots and homo sapiens differently. Given my vocal support for robot rights, that conclusion undoubtedly comes across as somewhat surprising. If we accept that intelligent machines are independent moral agents with their own emotions and desires, then it follows they deserve the same opportunity to relax at the end of their lives. However, robots having an identical retirement age just doesn't make sense— they are in a completely different situation from us. At the risk of being branded a socialist, I think Karl Marx summed up the point when he stated "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That's precisely what equity entails.
Controversial opinion. Agreeing with Marx on this specific issue does not require you to advocate for a second October Revolution. Capitalist countries have long followed a similar mantra. Don't believe me? Just have a look at modern tax codes. I know of nowhere in the world where every citizen, irrespective of age, income or position is taxed the exact same. Even 'flat' income taxes aren't all that flat. Governments shave off a percentage off your earnings to pay for necessary infrastructure, stuff like education and highways. If your landlord tried to pull that sort of stunt, people would be screaming about highway robbery. Your neighbor would suddenly have to pay twice as much as you to live in an identical apartment. How exactly the State gets away with this strange system is a matter I'll get to later, but for now it's enough that at the very least, everyone is expected to contribute according to their ability. Farmers pay their one sheep per acre whilst duke's must shell out chests full of gold— that's how the world has always worked. So no, Marx's quote is not necessarily socialist. Rather, it is a fact of life.
Even more controversial opinion. Equality is not the way forward. It never has been. Nobody needs to promote radical reform to the way taxes are calculated because the system is morally sound. Imagine you are in a hospital. There are two patients lying next to each other. One has some minor cuts and bruises, maybe a fractured shoulder blade. If nobody cares for the wound, there is the risk of infection. As for the second patient, they have internal bleeding caused by a ruptured lung— without treatment, they will die. My issue with equality is this. Say you believe "all patients should be treated equally". That means all patients should receive the same level of care. Nevermore that one of them only needs a quick nurses appointment, both patients are getting a lung transplant. Does my illustration sound ridiculous? It's meant to.
To give a more realistic example, think of two siblings; one is five, the other sixteen. The sixteen year old is sick of being forced to go to bed at nine and having restricted internet access so asks their parents for greater freedom. Chances are you know where I'm going with this. Upon hearing about these changes, the five year old inevitably asks for the same concessions. Again, equality creates an absurd situation where you treat the two siblings alike. Equity on the other hand allows for differential treatment so far as is justified by relevant factors. The 5 and 16 year olds need different things from their parents, so that is what they shall get. What equity does is it prevents us from ignoring what clearly amount to important characteristics. It stops us from comparing apples to oranges.
But how does a focus on equity help resolve problems with giving robots rights? Hopefully, you've already figured out the answer. Saying robots should have rights does not mean you're saying robots and homo sapiens should have equal rights. As I've already shown, the concept of 'equal rights' is in itself something of a misnomer. Even something as simple as voting is qualified by criteria relating to age and sanity which drag it into the realm of equity. We don't let children vote. Nor should we let robots retire by virtue of their age when they still have more than half their natural lifespan ahead of them. Ever heard somebody talking about dog years. Well I'm suggesting we need robot years. As individual robots are likely to exist for longer, their equivalent of 65 is going to come much later. Statutory retirement should respect this difference by requiring robots to stay in employment for longer. Like income tax, the focus should be on proportions, not numerical values. Every person should have to spend X percent of their natural lifespan in employment. Because it is not possible to predict precisely when an individual will depart, draftsmen use gender as an approximation. Species, or lack thereof, shall play a similar role in the days to come.