Will computers become a human right?

[Coolydudey]

Computers are literally invading our life in this modern world. I'm sure you could count on your fingers the members of the living adult population who have not come into contact with microchips during their lifetime, and it will be a minuscule percentage of people who do not do so daily.

By the same token, computers are becoming ever more important in our lives. For the sake of this argument, lets narrow the discussion down to personal computers/tablets/other comparable devices (independent of OS), but not phones or other stuff. Basically multi-purpose powerful configurable devices. Nowadays, one struggles without such a thing, and they are an integral part of how we gather information and navigate this world.

Such is the role of computers. In the future, it will continue to expand, and deepen where it is already important. In fact, I predict that PCs (in the form mentioned above) will in the near future (and probably not in the far future) become a practically indispensable part of our lives. Also, they're getting cheaper. Does all this mean they are on the road to becoming a human right?

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I don't see computers becoming a human right. The necessity of having one will increase as our technology advances. They can be used for practically anything nowadays.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think owning a computer will ever become a right, as such a law would require everyone first to own their own home (still not a thing).

Having access to a computer, however, is very doable. Government Internet Access Centres are already a thing in Tasmania for rural communities.

 

[Fukyo]

"Invading our lives"

Was that meant to sound so fatalistic?

 

[Words]

I think so. Something is made a "human right" because of its core, generally accepted importance and the availability of resource. As societies head towards placing "rights" on everything, and I'm talking about western developed welfare states, and as the cost of computers go down and as the more powerful computers become and as GDP keeps growing, it's not that hard to imagine them being a "right." At one point "life" wasn't even a right, and then we have property rights, and then we have democratic rights. There are even NGOs trying to build 20$ low-spec computers and I think it can be much more cheaper than that.

 

[Coolydudey]

"Invading our lives"

Was that meant to sound so fatalistic?

No, just realistic. Because it happens in a sense that we can't really control.

P.S. waiting to see a few more replies before I post something

 

[Analyzer]

Wouldn't that mean someone has to be forced to provide a computer to you? Which would violate the others persons right.

 

[GodOfOrder]

What about the day when computers have rights?

 

[Analyzer]

What about the day when computers have rights?

Yeah the more important question is AI/Transhumans rights. Will they just be extension of human rights?

 

[Cognisant]

Will computers become a human right?

There are no inherent rights, rather the rights given to us by our society are terms of our social contract, y'know your taxes pay for the police so it's in their best interests to ensure you're protected enough to afford to continue paying taxes. So in that sense when the benefit of providing computers outweighs the cost a shrewd goverment will make it our right to have a computer so as to better enable us to be productive members of society.

What's interesting is how this may apply to transhumanism, for example if Matrix style head-plug technology was developed and wasn't impractically dangerous/expensive to install I imagine goverments would do their utmost to encourage that people get them, kind of like how in some states/countries you can't send your child to daycare unless they've had the recommended vaccinations, all but forcing parents to ensure their child gets them.

Yeah the more important question is AI/Transhumans rights. Will they just be extension of human rights?

Well transhumans are still human and posthumans will probably get birth certificates, I mean the problem of having things that are effectively people running around without some kind of verifiable official identification would be too great for society to ignore, I imagine laws would quickly get written saying of have to register your posthuman just as there's laws now saying all human children have to be registered.

AIs on the other hand would be more codependent and so will probably fall under property law until such time as an AI rights movement forces society to recognise them as people, which I imagine will happen very quickly in developed countries, though maybe not in less developed ones.

 

[Analyzer]

There are no inherent rights, rather the rights given to us by our society are terms of our social contract,

What is our social contract? Is the rights that society gives to individuals are these not compromised of individuals?

 

[Cognisant]

I don't understand your question.

Are you trying to suggest that because there is no literal social contract (aside from written law) that our rights exist as ideals that are inherent to the hearts and minds of the individuals that comprise society, so they are inherent ideals because they are inherent to human nature?

It's a nice sentiment, but you're assuming that human nature as we experience it is in a natural state, which couldn't be further from the truth, our ideals are largely taught to us by the society we live in, so a sense we are domesticated, furthermore like a domesticated animal one need only starve a man to see it return to its true, undomesticated, natural state.

We are only as domesticated as circumstances allow, likewise our ideals and thus our rights, though firmly held and defended, do not qualify as "inherent".

 

[Absurdity]

"Will computers become a human right?"

This is how ideology is manufactured.

 

[Coolydudey]

What I mean could indeed simply be access to a computer.

Wouldn't that mean someone has to be forced to provide a computer to you? Which would violate the others persons right.

No. They still have access to it. Plus perhaps it could take the form of everyone has the right to own one.

By the way, people starting a debate about human rights: I don't believe they inherently exist either. I just mean the question in the sense of will access to a computer (or owning one) become part of some bill of rights or constitution?

I don't think owning a computer will ever become a right, as such a law would require everyone first to own their own home (still not a thing).

Having access to a computer, however, is very doable. Government Internet Access Centres are already a thing in Tasmania for rural communities.

There is a right to housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing), which doesn't mean it is universally adhered to. And, you don't have to OWN a home to own a computer (you could be renting it). Furthermore, what about portable computers?

And then about the AI rights? The moment a hint of sentience is perceived the campaigning for their rights will be started. Regardless of how irrelevant it may be (in most cases, you would be throwing emotions and physical constraints out the window - the stuff all rights are about).

 

[~~~]

What about the day when computers have rights?

Yeah, humans only ever think about themselves.

 

[Analyzer]

It's a nice sentiment, but you're assuming that human nature as we experience it is in a natural state, which couldn't be further from the truth, our ideals are largely taught to us by the society we live in, so a sense we are domesticated, furthermore like a domesticated animal one need only starve a man to see it return to its true, undomesticated, natural state.
.

So whats the point of the social contract if there are no inherent laws? What is the process it goes through to be known as the contract for the time or generation?

 

[Cognisant]

Just because there's no inherent reason not to bash each other's heads in doesn't mean that doing so would be a good idea, y'know I don't my head bashed in, nor do you or any of us, so we have a largely unspoken consensus that bashing in heads in is "wrong" unless it's to prevent someone bashing other people's heads in, this consensus is the essence of the social contract, we know it's generally in our best long term interests to work together relatively harmoniously so we do.

The proverbial social contract is an explanation of morality, and there's no inherent social contract because there's no inherent morality, if we're on a plane that's going down and there's only one parachute between us then morality ceases to be a factor, of course we may choose to abide by morality anyway and play paper/scissors/rock to see who gets to live, the loser assumedly being resigned to their fate, but even if they didn't, say for example you won but I bashed your head in with a wrench and took the parachute for myself, that's immoral, even unlawful, but nobody can hold it against me because in a matter of life or death it's to be expected that someone will do anything to survive, it's only natural.

I still don't really understand what you're asking.