Continuing our theme of fictional speculation about speculative fiction, suppose the Star Trek replicator were real. Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that we could copy absolutely anything, down to the atomic level.
There are all sorts of philosophical and ethical issues to unpack here. For example, if you could perfectly replicate a human being, ethical issues would abound beyond anything we have ever needed to deal with as a species.
So let’s take something simpler. Suppose you could perfectly replicate food.
Would everyone who eats meat be then able to classify themselves as an ethical vegan? After all, with the right replicator technology, you can precisely copy the taste and flavor and texture of any animal product, and then replicate that food item an infinite number of times.
This essentially removes from the equation the primary issue of ethical veganism: In order for an animal-sourced meal to show up on your plate, sentient beings have suffered and died.
Does the Star Trek replicator effectively take that issue off the table (so to speak)? Or are there other aspects of this question that my analysis is missing?
Imagine the offense if a dignitary were invited on board only to discover that the meal they were eating was a perfectly replicated copy of their own flesh or that of a lost loved one – or of a family pet. Could there be an ethical Harpagus feast? What about food that struggles as if alive? Guess there’d be some degree of connotative complications with it.
Aeschylus did a good job of covering your “dignitary” case about 2500 years ago, in his “Agamemnon”. That play is definitely worth a look. After all, in 458 BC it won first prize at the Dionysia festival, which is pretty cool.
As far as your second hypothetical case goes, if someone actually enjoys causing suffering by deliberately eating something that feels pain during the meal, the problems there go way beyond technology.
People will push any virtual technology to transgressive limits, especially if there’s not an overt consequence in the real world. Realistic virtual interactions are bound to have psychology-shaping effects, but I don’t think policing virtual activity is the answer either. Potent myth-making or historical re-creations in the virtual sphere may be our best antidote. But how? We’re creating worlds with infinite lives and no costs but potentially all the psychological rewards – at least if you stay connected – pure addiction. And imagine if we could actually fully experience another person’s dreams or thoughts realtime – could marriage withstand that? These seem to be the sketchy outlines for the virtual tales to come.
But imagine the power of a truly inspirational vision in this sphere. If people
(Oops, meant to revise and finish that reply, but let’s just leave it at that)
You make really good points, but I don’t think you are really talking about technology. Cruel and violent literature has existed for centuries, so clearly there is something in human nature that it resonates with. All of the issues around content policing, etc., have existed for all that time.
About your last point: I think if we could truly read each others’ minds, then society would be radically different. But within that radically different society (which I’m guessing we would find to be profoundly alien), people would simply consider themselves and each other to be normal.