Pretty straight forward question this one. Do all holograms deserve equal rights to organic life?
Holographic Rights?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
I will always say no. Holograms are tools, either for practical use (such as the EMH) or for pleasure (see Quark's holosuite catalogue). They are little more than their programming and the issue that VOY tried to make of it was pointless and felt extremely forced--as though they were trying to prove that they could still deal with important social issues, rather than just opening fire on every ship they come across.
I know a fellow who "thinks" animals don't have souls, and are here for the strict use of man, a kin to tools. I take the opposite view, that life weather A.I. or biological exist in many forms and deserves the consideration, that we would all expect for ourselves.
Little preachy-but that's how i feel.
Little preachy-but that's how i feel.
The entire issue was a contrived, moronic mess of Voyager desperately trying to copy "Measure Of A Man". But the idea that a hologram or program could become sentient because they never bothered to turn it off or whatever, was fucking stupid.
"Photons be free"? I mean who writes this shit? This is when 24th Century Star Trek became an embarrassment. What's next? Tri-Corders become sentient and start demanding rights as well?
This is the kind of crap that made leaving the 24th Century behind a necessity for the franchise.
"Photons be free"? I mean who writes this shit? This is when 24th Century Star Trek became an embarrassment. What's next? Tri-Corders become sentient and start demanding rights as well?
This is the kind of crap that made leaving the 24th Century behind a necessity for the franchise.
The sentient ones should have equal rights, of course. Starfleet is at the point technologically where it can create sentient life on a whim. And what did they do? Relegate the first generation of mass-produced sentient EMH holograms to slave labour mining dilithium.
There is, obviously, a HUGE difference between a sentient hologram and a non-sentient one. It's the inability to distinguish that that's leading to all the crap about "giving tricorders rights too"
There is, obviously, a HUGE difference between a sentient hologram and a non-sentient one. It's the inability to distinguish that that's leading to all the crap about "giving tricorders rights too"
The thing about rights is that they need to be unequal if life is to be equal for all these dissimilar forms of life or existence.
That is, a cripple requires the extra right for a wheelchair and a ramp if he is to be equal to a two-legged athlete. A woman requires extra rights for managing her pregnancy and childbirth and nursing if she's to be equal to a man employed in the same business. Or in reverse, the athlete needs to have his rights limited so that he won't be too superior to the cripple; the man has to have his holidays and wages cut so that he won't be too superior to the mother-to-be.
Holograms as depicted in Trek are both cripples and athletes: they are immortal, capable of multiple parallel lives at varying paces and other such weirdness, and (if they or their employers desire) physically and mentally far superior to biological humanoids, but also tied to hardware like a polio victim might be tied to an iron lung, and (if they or their employers desire) physically and mentally inferior. So various rights would have to be devised to make them equal to humanoids - and different holograms would need different rights, depending on their technological specs. Complicating matters would be the ability of the holograms to alter their specs on short notice...
However, these questions shouldn't be much of a challenge to the UFP legislation. After all, said legislation is already coping with hundreds of species that have been created very unequal, and apparently managing well enough even when, say, Vulcans appear to be granted the right to fight duels to death and humans appear not to. It would be fairly logical to assume that the UFP has devised a range of rights already, and that the range could be fairly simply expanded to encompass amoebae (the puddle kind and the thousands-of-miles-long spaceborne kind), kittens, Andorians, Excalbians and Gods alike. Holograms should not be anything novel and unexpected in this sense!
Timo Saloniemi
That is, a cripple requires the extra right for a wheelchair and a ramp if he is to be equal to a two-legged athlete. A woman requires extra rights for managing her pregnancy and childbirth and nursing if she's to be equal to a man employed in the same business. Or in reverse, the athlete needs to have his rights limited so that he won't be too superior to the cripple; the man has to have his holidays and wages cut so that he won't be too superior to the mother-to-be.
Holograms as depicted in Trek are both cripples and athletes: they are immortal, capable of multiple parallel lives at varying paces and other such weirdness, and (if they or their employers desire) physically and mentally far superior to biological humanoids, but also tied to hardware like a polio victim might be tied to an iron lung, and (if they or their employers desire) physically and mentally inferior. So various rights would have to be devised to make them equal to humanoids - and different holograms would need different rights, depending on their technological specs. Complicating matters would be the ability of the holograms to alter their specs on short notice...
However, these questions shouldn't be much of a challenge to the UFP legislation. After all, said legislation is already coping with hundreds of species that have been created very unequal, and apparently managing well enough even when, say, Vulcans appear to be granted the right to fight duels to death and humans appear not to. It would be fairly logical to assume that the UFP has devised a range of rights already, and that the range could be fairly simply expanded to encompass amoebae (the puddle kind and the thousands-of-miles-long spaceborne kind), kittens, Andorians, Excalbians and Gods alike. Holograms should not be anything novel and unexpected in this sense!
Timo Saloniemi
Nope, I feel like it would be arguing for the rights of a movie character or a video game character. If it was that big of a deal to the Federation than they should have put a limitation on holo technology to begin with. If we are going say they are sentient then people shouldn't be able to just go around and create holographic life all willy nilly for their own pleasure. What an absolute mess.
Was Worf's exercise program immoral because he got to kill skullface as many times as he waned? God, what about Quark's holosuite programs?
Was Worf's exercise program immoral because he got to kill skullface as many times as he waned? God, what about Quark's holosuite programs?
But that's what people do, create life all willy nilly for their own pleasure. There's no training for it, no licenses or permits, and no question about the rights of the results even if they prove grossly defective, barely if at all sentient, cruel and sadistic, whatever.
Timo Saloniemi
Yes but we have laws governing how we treat that life which we create. How can you say that there are no questions about the rights of our "results" even if they prove defective.
There are laws that keep us from throwing handicapped babies in the garbage and the way we treat children in general. Holodecks/Holosuites are pretty much anything goes depending where you are. Was Beverly a horrible person for activating the EMH on the Enterprise-E to fend off the Borg? Am I a horrible person for being a terrible player of Super Mario Brothers?
I wonder how many Mario's we've sent off to death for our own amusement? Trillions?
I wonder how many Mario's we've sent off to death for our own amusement? Trillions?
Enough to mine every piece of dilithium in the Quadrant.
I love the misconception between holograms, which is just one form of graphical presentation, and the program it represents. Not even the writers in Trek got it right.
No, because Worf's training holograms and Quarks sex holograms aren't sentient. They have computer game character-level AI.
You're seeing the avatars that look equally realistic and thus are treating all holograms the same way. Computer programs don't work like that.
Moriaty, the EMH's, the holograms the Hirogen made in "Flesh and Blood" - they are sentient. As alive as Data. Starfleet's technology has evolved to the point where they can do this. Of course those made sentient should have rights, just the same as the babies we make should. If you create life, you damn well should treat it with respect.
I agree with most of the other posters here. Holograms are nothing but computer software. If you think you've found a sentient hologram, what you've actually found is simply the work of a particularly insightful and talented programmer.
Of course, that's not the way Trek, itself, looks at it. For storytelling purposes, Trek has shown the occasional "living" hologram (Voyager's doctor, Professor Moriarty). In those instances, I just suspend my disbelief for the sake of enjoying the story.
Of course, that's not the way Trek, itself, looks at it. For storytelling purposes, Trek has shown the occasional "living" hologram (Voyager's doctor, Professor Moriarty). In those instances, I just suspend my disbelief for the sake of enjoying the story.
Holograms are just an output device. Computer screen, beamer, or hologram.
The program behind it is the important part. The EMH from Voyager could as well just be a text console and a couple of robotic arms. The AI behind it is independent from that.
Again, the hologram is just a representation, guys.
The program behind it is the important part. The EMH from Voyager could as well just be a text console and a couple of robotic arms. The AI behind it is independent from that.
Again, the hologram is just a representation, guys.
Exactly. And while the program behind the EMH probably warranted an extensive set of rights, and Skeletor the Target warranted none, it also follows that there would be many programs that do not manifest as personified holograms but still are highly sentient and sapient and might warrant extensive "human" rights.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
So is it the program complexity that determines sentience? Skellator is simpler to create while the EMH is more difficult? EMH deserves rights, skellator does not?
