Rights for Robots; Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RIGHTS FOR ROBOTS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Joshua C. Gellers Rights for Robots Bringing a unique perspective to the burgeoning ethical and legal issues surrounding the presence of artificial intelligence in our daily lives, the book uses theory and practice on animal rights and the rights of nature to assess the status of robots. Through extensive philosophical and legal analyses, the book explores how rights can be applied to nonhuman entities. This task is completed by developing a framework useful for determining the kinds of personhood for which a nonhuman entity might be eligible, and a critical environmental ethic that extends moral and legal consideration to nonhumans. The framework and ethic are then applied to two hypothetical situations involving real-world technology—animal-like robot companions and humanoid sex robots. Additionally, the book approaches the subject from multiple perspectives, providing a comparative study of legal cases on animal rights and the rights of nature from around the world and insights from structured interviews with leading experts in the field of robotics. Ending with a call to rethink the concept of rights in the Anthropocene, suggestions for further research are made. An essential read for scholars and students interested in robot, animal, and environmental law, as well as those interested in technology more generally, the book is a ground-breaking study of an increasingly relevant topic, as robots become ubiquitous in modern society. Joshua C. Gellers is an associate professor of Political Science at the University of North Florida, Research Fellow of the Earth System Governance Project, and Core Team Member of the Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment. His research focuses on the relationship between the environment, human rights, and technology. Josh has published work in Global Environmental Politics, International Environmental Agreements, and Journal of Environment and Development, among others. He is the author of The Global Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights (Routledge 2017). Rights for Robots Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law Joshua C. Gellers First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Joshua C. Gellers The right of Joshua C. Gellers to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis .com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 9780367211745 (hbk) ISBN: 9780429288159 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To Allie, my sunshine, and Lillie Faye, our sky. Contents List of figures viii List of tables ix Acknowledgments x List of abbreviations xi Introduction 1 1 Rights for robots: Making sense of the machine question 15 2 Getting to rights: Personhoods, statuses, and incidents 28 3 The rights of animals: In search of humanity 62 4 The rights of nature: Ethics, law, and the Anthropocene 104 5 Rights for robots in a posthuman ecology 140 Index 171 Figures 2.1 Conceptual map of properties/mechanisms, personhoods, statuses, and positions/incidents 49 5.1 Multi-spectral framework for determining personhoods 155 Tables 3.1 Comparison of animal rights cases 91 4.1 Comparison of rights of nature cases 129 Acknowledgments Many individuals assisted me in the completion of this book in ways big and small. I wish to recognize them here as a token of my gratitude. Thanks to my editor at Routledge, Colin Perrin, who saw promise in the project that later blossomed into this book. In the environmental domain, David Boyd, Erin Daly, Anna Grear, Craig Kauffman, David Vogel, and participants in the “Earth System Governance 4.0” panel at the 2019 Mexico Conference on Earth System Governance supplied key insights that helped me look at robots through an ecological lens. A num- ber of experts on artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics welcomed this outsider into conversations about philosophical and legal issues surrounding intelligent machines. They include Joanna Bryson, Mark Coeckelbergh, Kate Devlin, Daniel Estrada, David Gunkel, Paresh Kathrani, and Noel Sharkey. I am humbled by those roboticists and technologists who were willing to be interviewed for this project. These gracious interviewees include Kate Darling, Yoshikazu Kanamiya, Takayuki Kanda, Ryutaro Murayama, Atsuo Takanishi, Fumihide Tanaka, Yueh- Hsuan Weng, and Jinseok Woo. I could not have conducted field research in Japan without the financial support of a faculty development grant from my insti- tution, the University of North Florida (UNF). At UNF, I am grateful for Mandi Barringer, who let me talk about robots with her students, and Ayan Dutta, who took the time to discuss swarm robotics with me. Also, I am deeply appreciative of the work put in by Patrick Healy, who transcribed all of my interviews. Thanks to my mom, dad, and Aunt Diane, who encouraged my love of science and science fiction; my brother Brett and sister-in-law Jessica, who met my robotic musings with healthy skepticism; my late uncle Tuvia Ben-Shmuel Yosef (Don Gellers), whose advocacy for the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine has deservedly earned him posthumous justice and acclaim; my dog Shiva, who participated in several lay experiments that confirmed her possession of consciousness, intelligence, and intentionality; and my dear wife Allie, whose unyielding love for me might only be surpassed by the patience she has exhibited throughout this entire process. There’s no one else with whom I’d rather be self-quarantined. Abbreviations Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) Center for Great Apes (CGA) Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) Information Ethics (IE) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) Rights of Nature (RoN) Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Introduction Theodore: Cause you seem like a person, but you’re just a voice in a computer. Samantha: I can understand how the limited perspective of an un-artificial mind would perceive it that way. You’ll get used to it.1 Can robots have rights? This question has inspired significant debate among phi- losophers, computer scientists, policymakers, and the popular press. However, much of the discussion surrounding this issue has been conducted in the limited quarters of disciplinary silos and without a fuller appreciation of important macro- level developments. I argue that the so-called “machine question” (Gunkel, 2012, p. x), specifically the inquiry into whether and to what extent intelligent machines might warrant moral (or perhaps legal) consideration, deserves extended analysis in light of these developments. Two global trends seem to be on a collision course. On the one hand, robots are becoming increasingly human-like in their appearance and behavior. Sophia, a female-looking humanoid robot created by Hong Kong–based Hanson Robotics (Hi, I Am Sophia…, 2019), serves as a prime example. In 2017, Sophia captured the world’s imagination (and drew substantial ire as well) when the robot was granted “a citizenship” by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Hatmaker, 2017). While this move was criticized as a “careful piece of marketing” (British Council, n.d.), “eroding human rights” (Hart, 2018), and “obviously bullshit” (J. Bryson quoted in Vincent, 2017), it elevated the idea that robots might be eligible for certain types of legal status based on how they look and act. Despite the controversy surrounding Sophia and calls to temper the quest for human-like appearance, the degree to which robots are designed to emulate humans is only likely to increase in the future, be it for reasons related to improved functioning in social environ- ments or the hubris of roboticists. On the other hand, legal systems around the world are increasingly recogniz- ing the rights of nonhuman entities. The adoption of Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution marked a watershed moment in this movement, as the charter devoted an entire 2 Introduction chapter to the rights of nature (RoN) (Ecuador Const., tit. II, ch. 7). Courts and legislatures different corners of the globe have similarly identified rights held by nonhumans—the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Ganges and its tributaries in India, the Atrato River in Colombia, and Mother Nature herself (Pachamama) in Ecuador (Cano-Pecharroman, 2018). In the United States, nearly 100 municipal ordinances invoking the RoN have been passed or pending since 2006 (Kauffman & Martin, 2018, p. 43). Many more efforts to legalize the RoN are afoot at the subnational, national, and international levels (Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, 2019). All of this is happening in tandem with legal efforts seeking to pro- tect animals under the argument that they, too, possess rights. While animal rights litigation has not had much success in the United States (Vayr, 2017, p. 849), it has obtained a few victories in Argentina, Colombia, and India (Peters, 2018, p. 356). These worldwide movements cast doubt on the idea that humans are the only class of legal subjects worthy of rights. These trends speak to two existential crises facing humanity. First, the rise of robots in society calls into question the place of humans in the workforce and what it means to be human.