https://lunarpedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Jriley&feedformat=atomLunarpedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T15:34:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.2https://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=User:Jriley&diff=25152User:Jriley2013-08-18T13:06:13Z<p>Jriley: /* Minor technical author */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:TomRileyChest02.jpg|frame|300px|Tom Riley with hand carved chest]]<br />
<BR clear="all"/><br />
<br />
{|align=right<br />
|__TOC__<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<font size=5> Tom Riley, a Short Introduction </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
==Astronomical Engineer==<br />
<br />
* Visual and conceptual thinker<br />
* Bachelors of Science, University of Houston, 1969<br />
* Master of Engineering Management, George Washington University, 1995<br />
* 20 years experience in the aerospace industry<br />
* 15 year experience mentoring students<br />
<br />
<br />
==Minor technical author==<br />
<br />
* [http://woodwaredesigns.com/EBook/EBook.html "Hard Squared Science Fiction, Vol. 01, The Dark of the Moon"], E-Book 2013<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/book.html ''Look the Future Straight in the Eye''], 2002<br />
* ''The Computer Controller Cookbook'', 1989<br />
* Numerous engineering and popular science articles<br />
<br />
==Low-stress furniture designer and woodworker==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/woodware.html Woodware Designs]<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/picgal.html Wood working projects pictures]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Web Master==<br />
<br />
* For more than a decade<br />
* [http://woodwaredesigns.com/woodware.html Woodware Designs]<br />
* [http://woodwaredesigns.com/EBook/EBook.html E-Book of Science Fiction stories]<br />
<br />
==Union Member and Steward==<br />
<br />
* Area Vice president, IFPTE, Local 29<br />
<br />
<br />
==A Person==<br />
<br />
* Husband and father<br />
* Lifelong non violence worker<br />
* Technical maven extraordinaire<br />
* mailto: TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com<br />
<br />
==Personal Weaknesses==<br />
<br />
* "I have a head full of ideas, and they are driving me insane." -- Bob Dylan<br />
* I do not read minds, not yours and certainly no woman's<br />
* I cannot proofread, not your stuff and not my stuff<br />
<br />
==Photos==<br />
<br />
<br />
*[http://www.charm.net/~jriley/aacsb01.jpg with a very long desk.]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=User:Jriley&diff=25151User:Jriley2013-08-18T13:03:57Z<p>Jriley: /* Web Master */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:TomRileyChest02.jpg|frame|300px|Tom Riley with hand carved chest]]<br />
<BR clear="all"/><br />
<br />
{|align=right<br />
|__TOC__<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<font size=5> Tom Riley, a Short Introduction </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
==Astronomical Engineer==<br />
<br />
* Visual and conceptual thinker<br />
* Bachelors of Science, University of Houston, 1969<br />
* Master of Engineering Management, George Washington University, 1995<br />
* 20 years experience in the aerospace industry<br />
* 15 year experience mentoring students<br />
<br />
<br />
==Minor technical author==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/book.html ''Look the Future Straight in the Eye''], 2002<br />
* ''The Computer Controller Cookbook'', 1989<br />
* Numerous engineering and popular science articles<br />
<br />
<br />
==Low-stress furniture designer and woodworker==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/woodware.html Woodware Designs]<br />
* [http://www.charm.net/~jriley/picgal.html Wood working projects pictures]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Web Master==<br />
<br />
* For more than a decade<br />
* [http://woodwaredesigns.com/woodware.html Woodware Designs]<br />
* [http://woodwaredesigns.com/EBook/EBook.html E-Book of Science Fiction stories]<br />
<br />
==Union Member and Steward==<br />
<br />
* Area Vice president, IFPTE, Local 29<br />
<br />
<br />
==A Person==<br />
<br />
* Husband and father<br />
* Lifelong non violence worker<br />
* Technical maven extraordinaire<br />
* mailto: TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com<br />
<br />
==Personal Weaknesses==<br />
<br />
* "I have a head full of ideas, and they are driving me insane." -- Bob Dylan<br />
* I do not read minds, not yours and certainly no woman's<br />
* I cannot proofread, not your stuff and not my stuff<br />
<br />
==Photos==<br />
<br />
<br />
*[http://www.charm.net/~jriley/aacsb01.jpg with a very long desk.]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Farred&diff=25150User talk:Farred2013-08-18T12:57:18Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page awaits comments. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Farred, you ask about snail mail address for Lunarpedia.<br />
<br />
Lunarpedia is an asset of the Moon Society, and this is the address:<br />
<br />
http://moonsociety.org/about/contact.php3<br />
<br />
The Moon Society<br />
P.O. Box 940825<br />
Plano, TX 75094-0825 [[User:Cfrjlr|Charles F. Radley]] 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mass Drivers==<br />
I recommend that you drop the font tags at the beginning as they are messing with the formatting, then provide a general summary of mass drivers before the circum polar section. Also, providing outside sources so that you're data can be verified is very important for article credibility. Without links to sources or the inclusion of specific and tested data, it will be assumed that your article is mostly conjecture. [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Do you have a messenger program? I'm running yahoo, aim, icq, and I can load msn when needed. [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I didn't mean to offend. Are you alright? - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Revealing your identity is unnecessary for posting graphics. Simply refer to yourself as "author" in the description of the graphic. "I, the auther, do hereby release this graphic ("to the public domain", "under the terms of the GNUFDL license", or "with my permission for use by Lunarpedia and as author I retain all rights to this work")"<br />
<br />
:Take your pick. GNUFDL is the "General Non-profit Use Free Documentation License" and means it can be replicated, modified, and used anywhere so long as it is not for profit. You can also obtain an anonymous email at webmail.aol.com, gmail.com, or hotmail.com - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 18:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Robotics==<br />
<br />
Well done! I don't know what the response to the "Do People Care?" question is, but you've got the material for a glad-hander right there in your final argument and referenced addendum to final argument, combined with some of the earlier stuff. So long as you mention it as a way to exponentially increase capabilities on the ISS or Lunar Outpost by reducing the amount of people and life support needed on site, you shouldn't have any problems. Full robotic missions will come once the technology is far enough developed that humans become unnecessary for early stage facilities. Just be slick about it and don't tell them that unless it's what they want to hear ;-) - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 04:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Metal Printing==<br />
The topic of printing metal parts has come up on another forum and I was wondering if you could take a look and give me your opinion on the "wire printer" concept, seeing as you're the metallurgy guru around these parts :D You can find the idea by following [http://forum.lunarcc.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30 this link]. Reply on lunarpedia if that makes you more comfortable. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the advice and links. I had a pretty good feeling that it wasn't going to be that easy (only because I have some welding experience). The overall goals of the group are unrealistic, to be quite honest. - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 05:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==hack==<br />
You may have been hacked. please change your password - [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== IUPAC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Aluminium is the international nomenclature and the one that figures and is used by IUPAC. And the approved one.<br />
<br />
I checked in the IUPAC because I was not sure about Aluminum or Aluminium. I really do not care which one American's are using but since Aluminium is the one that figures in the IUPAC I would defend Aluminium over Aluminum.<br />
<br />
Also I would defend Metric system. And Celsius over Fahrenheit.<br />
<br />
English is for me a tool. I am still learning. I didn't meant to offend you or something. Sorry about EEUU, I'm not very good in writing. I do not feel underestimated.<br />
<br />
I do not think England has to do anything with this. I have English and American friends and I do not prefer one over another. Neither their language. --[[User:Jotagiraldez|Jotagiraldez]] 19:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Aluminium/aluminum ==<br />
<br />
I really do not know what to do. You are convincing. Lets wait to see what happens... Perhaps the users are going to change everything to aluminum... The community will decide. <br />
:The above comment was posted by [[User:Jotagiraldez|Jotagiraldez]] at 02:46 hours UTC on the 10th of November 2010. --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 23:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==CAPTCHA posture change==<br />
Despite not being in very good shape right now I've managed to alter the CAPTCHA settings to hopefully stop the script that's damaging articles here without breaking the wiki. It seems to only impact anonymous attacks. As always, many thanks for your continued dedication to Lunarpedia! -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 05:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Sad to hear that you are not in good shape. Take care of yourself before Lunarpedia. Thanks for any help you feel up to. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 05:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Fix category:Initial Investment== <br />
The category was added by [[User:Fructivore]] <br />
:[[User:Farred|Farred]] 11:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Write <nowiki>[[Carbon monoxide]]</nowiki>== <br />
[[User:Farred|Farred]] 17:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Possible new article== <br />
Consider writing an article to go along with [[Talk:Why should we build lunar settlement on the moon]] which a contributor added without the corresponding article.<br />
<br />
==Note Cfrjlr's comments== <br />
He writes it in [[Volatiles]].<br />
<br />
==To do== <br />
Add halo orbit option to [[Farside Communication]]. <br />
<br />
Merge[[X-Prize]] and [[X-Prize Lunar Lander Challenge]].<br />
<br />
Add to <nowiki>[[Reflecting Telescopes]]</nowiki>.<br />
<br />
==Reason to delete==<br />
user page for a non-contributor who expresses no interest in colonizing moon<br />
<br />
==Attacker Control Counteroffer==<br />
On one occasion we had it set up so that one needed to fill out a form explaining who they are. This was a disaster becaues no one with adbin powers checked for about a month and none of the very legitimate applicants ever contributed after we finally authorized them. Account creating attacks are the ones that I'm very concerned about, ansd it seems to be getting worse across the board, although we still have a ways to go to reach the nightmare at LPedia that I also want this solution for, at least for the time being.<br />
<br />
We don't need to exclued non-members -- just everyone who can't make a coherent and relevant statement about why they should have an account. Would you be willing to pick up the ball on this if one of us can figure out how to re-enable it?<br />
<br />
Please feel free to drop by [[ASI MOO]] and yell at us sometime. Right now we're trying to get new website for the society up by the third Wednesday of April.<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 07:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) <br />
<br />
==Moon Society Spotlight==<br />
If you look at test dot moonsociety.org with most reasonably CSS3 compatible web browsers (MSIE 9 and Opera below 12.10 being the main exceptions) you should be able to see the Spotlight column if your browser window is wide enough -- if it isn't or you're looking with something older you'll notice a row of buttons at the bottom for the spotlight. <br />
<br />
The Spotlight is a feature of the [[Coriolis (web theme)|Coriolis]] web theme I've spent all year working on to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. The intent is to feature things of possible interest to visitors and hopefully impress them. Three categories: technical, easy, and miscellaneous -- one button from each category is shown each time, in random order. Problem: we only have three technical, two easy, and two miscellaneous. Two of the technical items are Lunarpedia articles, one is the Power Beaming Demo kit, easy is MMM #1 and the society president's blog, and the two miscellaneous are Lunarpedia and Exodictionary. What would be some good additions that you can think of? Each item needs a title, possibly a brief description, a link, and -- very importantly -- a graphic. We have several articles that would be excellent additions to the technical category but have no graphics. Obviously adding a graphic would help...<br />
<br />
Any good ideas? This is one of two things that may prevent us from getting this deployed in time for ISDC. The other is even further behind: migrating site content over... Thank you in advance for any suggestions!<br />
<br />
-- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:''I see "Earth is the cradle of..." then something is missing. ''<br />
<br />
::That's Ken's site, and I've not checked to see how compatible it is with MSIE 8 (someone eles's problem). I hope the test site works well with MSIE 8 as I have ten different themes, one of which is exclusively for MSIE 7 and 8. You'll still get a better experience with a CSS3 compatible browser, or maybe you'd be joining the chorus that's finding nits with my new buttons that I've been unable to address so far...<br />
<br />
::I must admit that I'm not asking for help with the HTML (I believe I have that covered and I accept that I'm the one best able to hack at the markup and stylesheets and graphics), I'm just whating to know what articles you've seen (and possibyl written) in the wikis that would be good to feature in the spotright that either have a graphic or that you might be able to find a suitable one for. Obviously, Mars-centric articles probably need to be kept to a minimum lest we confuse visitors to moonsociety.org...<br />
<br />
::-- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Dear Farred,<br />
<br />
I though you might like an update on the science fiction project as there as been little action on your web site in some time.<br />
<br />
New data from the LRO mission forced the complete redesign of the settlement that is the setting for most of the stories (the radiation shielding was inadequate). This work teamed with the opening up of e-publication pointed in a new direction. I am most happy to tell you that we now have an e-book out with five short stories specifically designed to build buy-in for space exploration among young adults.<br />
<br />
More details can be found at:<br />
<br />
"Hard Squared Science Fiction, Vol. 01", "The Dark of the Moon"<br />
http://woodwaredesigns.com/EBook/EBook.html<br />
<br />
We are planning for a cooperative writing project in the Fall to create Vol. 02.<br />
<br />
Please let me know if you would like a more detailed discussion on your Wiki.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
Tom Riley<br />
TomRiley@WoodwareDesigns.com<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:75.73.69.17&diff=18522User talk:75.73.69.172012-07-22T22:59:32Z<p>Jriley: Created page with "Unfortunately the new LRO data makes the approach shown in this architecture unlikely to address the radiation exposure problem sufficiently. I am working on a radical solution ..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Unfortunately the new LRO data makes the approach shown in this architecture unlikely to address the radiation exposure problem sufficiently. I am working on a radical solution but it is for a Mars mission. These arguments are rather long and I am currently preparing a related e-book. Please e-mail me if you are interested in somewhat length arguments in this area.<br />
<br />
Tom Riley<br />
TomRiley@WoodwareDesigns.com</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Symbiotes&diff=17283Talk:Symbiotes2012-01-21T00:22:48Z<p>Jriley: /* Topic */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need to rethink our design of lunar settlements in view of new information and new concepts. This is a start of that design effort.<br />
<br />
As with all design efforts we must start at the top. Our relationship to our machines is at the very top of any design involving man in space.<br />
<br />
I look forward to your input.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Copyright questions about images in article== <br />
There are some image files that seem to me to be neither public domain nor the property of Jriley. There is "Steve Jobs & iPhone", "Terminator, Defleshed" and "HAL200101.jpg". There is no clear attestation of public domain or original work for a number of other images. What I propose to do is leave the black swan graph and robonaut images and delete the rest. If there is good reason to believe that Jriley has the right to publish these images, now is the time to make this clear. There has been much sentiment for new restrictive laws that could put Wikis out of action for even suspected copyright violations. I do not want Lunarpedia to be an example of the copyright abuse that backers of such laws can point to and say: "See, that is the flagrant abuse we are trying to stop." [[User:Farred|Farred]] 23:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I have followed a suggestion by Mike and Rose for the three most likely to be problematic images (as a step short of deletion in case a fair use or other solution can be worked out in the next few days), but most of the other images, depending on their sources, are likely to be equally as problematic. We really need to know where they came from and what terms they're available under. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I've found one of the generic images. It's public domain on Wikipedia. if Tom doesn't reappear in time to clarify and we can't find them the other generic images should be easy enough to replace with ones we can be confident about. Obviously, the three others are going to be a little bit harder to replace... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 08:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The images undocumented images are all generic or taken from ad materials. They are not critical to the argument of the entry so I simply removed them.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Topic==<br />
The symbiotic relationship that we have with plants and machines will play an important role in the future of moon's history. The article needs refinement... the black swans are out of the topic. This articles is organized like a college handout. --[[User:Jotagiraldez|Jose Giraldez]] 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Some people might find it useful to think of the relationship between people and our machines as symbiotic. We can leave it as an article on Lunarpedia but technically machines cannot be symbiotes because they are not alive. Attempting legal incorporation of a machine will not change that. Legal corporations are not alive. Any action a corporation takes must be taken by some human agent of the corporation acting on behalf of the corporation. A corporation is a legal organization of people that is documented by some state of the United States or a foreign state. It is not a living thing and it cannot be a symbiote. A machine can be the property of a corporation, but it cannot be a corporation. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Although a human would program the machine and the machine would act following that program, unintended consequences may happen, such as stock trading programs crashing the market by following instructions to minimize losses, followed by humans capitalizing on the crash by buying cheap. What happens when machines start programming each other? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::A recent Wired cover article had a red-colored toy robot on its side. It firmly announced that Artificial Intelligence is here -- and that it's nothing at all like we expected. We seem to be building unconsciousnesses of enormous, if typically specialized capabilities. It's very possible that some combination of these plus some additional, to-be developed ''modules'' -- to borrow a term from Evolutionary Psychology -- will finally provide us with the Singularity level conscious AI we've been awaiting for more than half a century. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article? Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece. Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: This Symboliotes entry was a reorganization of a paper written for another purpose and would work better here as several linked entries. It is in three distinct parts. The first part is on "why" and is somewhat out of place by the normal logic of a technical article. It appears first first because reading the technical discussion first tends reduce the number of readers who ever read past it into the why section. People simply like "why" better than "what".<br />
<br />
:: The black swans make a somewhat out of context appearance because the "why" of the whole article is to force out-of-box thinking. Yes, we really do need a full article on black swans as we are doing our up-most to generate some.<br />
<br />
:: The third section, legal robot people, is an argument ad adsurbum. Making corporations people logically leads to making robots people. If you do not accept the second idea, then you should not accept the first idea. Again this is a rather desperate attempt to get a raise out of somebody at a time when the Moon is a dead subject.<br />
<br />
:: I do stand by the major concept however. To reinvigorate human space exploration for the 21st century, we must redesign everything. The place to start is '''not''' at the bottom with rockets and spacesuits but at the top with a complete re-conception of who human beings are and how we relate to our machines. Odd as it may seem, a spaceship that loves you is a good place to start.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Symbiotes&diff=17282Talk:Symbiotes2012-01-21T00:20:51Z<p>Jriley: /* Topic */ What to do, what to do</p>
<hr />
<div>We need to rethink our design of lunar settlements in view of new information and new concepts. This is a start of that design effort.<br />
<br />
As with all design efforts we must start at the top. Our relationship to our machines is at the very top of any design involving man in space.<br />
<br />
I look forward to your input.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Copyright questions about images in article== <br />
There are some image files that seem to me to be neither public domain nor the property of Jriley. There is "Steve Jobs & iPhone", "Terminator, Defleshed" and "HAL200101.jpg". There is no clear attestation of public domain or original work for a number of other images. What I propose to do is leave the black swan graph and robonaut images and delete the rest. If there is good reason to believe that Jriley has the right to publish these images, now is the time to make this clear. There has been much sentiment for new restrictive laws that could put Wikis out of action for even suspected copyright violations. I do not want Lunarpedia to be an example of the copyright abuse that backers of such laws can point to and say: "See, that is the flagrant abuse we are trying to stop." [[User:Farred|Farred]] 23:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I have followed a suggestion by Mike and Rose for the three most likely to be problematic images (as a step short of deletion in case a fair use or other solution can be worked out in the next few days), but most of the other images, depending on their sources, are likely to be equally as problematic. We really need to know where they came from and what terms they're available under. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I've found one of the generic images. It's public domain on Wikipedia. if Tom doesn't reappear in time to clarify and we can't find them the other generic images should be easy enough to replace with ones we can be confident about. Obviously, the three others are going to be a little bit harder to replace... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 08:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The images undocumented images are all generic or taken from ad materials. They are not critical to the argument of the entry so I simply removed them.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Topic==<br />
The symbiotic relationship that we have with plants and machines will play an important role in the future of moon's history. The article needs refinement... the black swans are out of the topic. This articles is organized like a college handout. --[[User:Jotagiraldez|Jose Giraldez]] 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Some people might find it useful to think of the relationship between people and our machines as symbiotic. We can leave it as an article on Lunarpedia but technically machines cannot be symbiotes because they are not alive. Attempting legal incorporation of a machine will not change that. Legal corporations are not alive. Any action a corporation takes must be taken by some human agent of the corporation acting on behalf of the corporation. A corporation is a legal organization of people that is documented by some state of the United States or a foreign state. It is not a living thing and it cannot be a symbiote. A machine can be the property of a corporation, but it cannot be a corporation. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Although a human would program the machine and the machine would act following that program, unintended consequences may happen, such as stock trading programs crashing the market by following instructions to minimize losses, followed by humans capitalizing on the crash by buying cheap. What happens when machines start programming each other? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::A recent Wired cover article had a red-colored toy robot on its side. It firmly announced that Artificial Intelligence is here -- and that it's nothing at all like we expected. We seem to be building unconsciousnesses of enormous, if typically specialized capabilities. It's very possible that some combination of these plus some additional, to-be developed ''modules'' -- to borrow a term from Evolutionary Psychology -- will finally provide us with the Singularity level conscious AI we've been awaiting for more than half a century. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article? Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece. Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: This Symboliotes entry was a reorganization of a paper written for another purpose and would work better here as several linked entries. It is in three distinct parts. The first part is on "why" and is somewhat out of place by the normal logic of a technical article. It appears first first because reading the technical discussion first tends reduce the number of readers who ever read past it into the why section. People simply like "why" better than "what".<br />
<br />
:: The black swans make a somewhat out of context appearance because the "why" of the whole article is to force out-of-box thinking. Yes, we really do need a full article on black swans as we are doing our up-most to generate some.<br />
<br />
:: The third section, legal robot people, is an argument ad adsurbum. Making corporations people logically leads to making robots people. If you do not accept the second idea, then you should not accept the first idea. Again this is a rather desperate attempt to get a raise out of somebody at a time when the Moon is a dead subject.<br />
<br />
:: I do stand by the major concept however. To reinvigorate human space exploration for the 21st century, we must redesign everything. The place to start is '''not''' at the bottom with rockets and spacesuits but at the top with a complete re-conception of who human beings are how we relate to our machines. Odd as it may seem, a spaceship that loves you is a good place to start.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Symbiotes&diff=17281Talk:Symbiotes2012-01-20T23:54:04Z<p>Jriley: /* Copyright questions about images in article */</p>
<hr />
<div>We need to rethink our design of lunar settlements in view of new information and new concepts. This is a start of that design effort.<br />
<br />
As with all design efforts we must start at the top. Our relationship to our machines is at the very top of any design involving man in space.<br />
<br />
I look forward to your input.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Copyright questions about images in article== <br />
There are some image files that seem to me to be neither public domain nor the property of Jriley. There is "Steve Jobs & iPhone", "Terminator, Defleshed" and "HAL200101.jpg". There is no clear attestation of public domain or original work for a number of other images. What I propose to do is leave the black swan graph and robonaut images and delete the rest. If there is good reason to believe that Jriley has the right to publish these images, now is the time to make this clear. There has been much sentiment for new restrictive laws that could put Wikis out of action for even suspected copyright violations. I do not want Lunarpedia to be an example of the copyright abuse that backers of such laws can point to and say: "See, that is the flagrant abuse we are trying to stop." [[User:Farred|Farred]] 23:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I have followed a suggestion by Mike and Rose for the three most likely to be problematic images (as a step short of deletion in case a fair use or other solution can be worked out in the next few days), but most of the other images, depending on their sources, are likely to be equally as problematic. We really need to know where they came from and what terms they're available under. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I've found one of the generic images. It's public domain on Wikipedia. if Tom doesn't reappear in time to clarify and we can't find them the other generic images should be easy enough to replace with ones we can be confident about. Obviously, the three others are going to be a little bit harder to replace... -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 08:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The images undocumented images are all generic or taken from ad materials. They are not critical to the argument of the entry so I simply removed them.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Topic==<br />
The symbiotic relationship that we have with plants and machines will play an important role in the future of moon's history. The article needs refinement... the black swans are out of the topic. This articles is organized like a college handout. --[[User:Jotagiraldez|Jose Giraldez]] 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Some people might find it useful to think of the relationship between people and our machines as symbiotic. We can leave it as an article on Lunarpedia but technically machines cannot be symbiotes because they are not alive. Attempting legal incorporation of a machine will not change that. Legal corporations are not alive. Any action a corporation takes must be taken by some human agent of the corporation acting on behalf of the corporation. A corporation is a legal organization of people that is documented by some state of the United States or a foreign state. It is not a living thing and it cannot be a symbiote. A machine can be the property of a corporation, but it cannot be a corporation. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Although a human would program the machine and the machine would act following that program, unintended consequences may happen, such as stock trading programs crashing the market by following instructions to minimize losses, followed by humans capitalizing on the crash by buying cheap. What happens when machines start programming each other? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::A recent Wired cover article had a red-colored toy robot on its side. It firmly announced that Artificial Intelligence is here -- and that it's nothing at all like we expected. We seem to be building unconsciousnesses of enormous, if typically specialized capabilities. It's very possible that some combination of these plus some additional, to-be developed ''modules'' -- to borrow a term from Evolutionary Psychology -- will finally provide us with the Singularity level conscious AI we've been awaiting for more than half a century. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Maybe Black Swans needs to be its own article? Given the presence of discussion questions, I assume the whole article was intended as a starter/thought piece. Perhaps symbiosis is the wrong word; do we have other candidates? [[User:Miros1|Rose/Miros]] 01:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17280Symbiotes2012-01-20T23:51:39Z<p>Jriley: Remove undocumented graphics</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of symbiotes is discussed in detail and its possible application to the relationship between humans and machines. The idea of a robot as a corporate person is also discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, for most people it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
This entry is an intentional effort to seed an out-of-box idea and thereby create a good Black Swan. Romancing Black Swans, like we are doing here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but perhaps in the case of humans, we should define the term a bit more broadly in a very specific fashion than in a strict sense of biological species -- yet in another sense, we're arguably heading towards a very specific category of symbiosis with this slightly more permissive broad definition.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Presumably, only those in the strongest category should be considered as true symbiotes (or a term even more specific to this purpose) for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Open.NASA&diff=17207Open.NASA2012-01-16T13:26:15Z<p>Jriley: /* NASA LAUNCHES OPEN SOURCE */</p>
<hr />
<div>== NASA LAUNCHES OPEN SOURCE ==<br />
<br />
On January 4, NASA launched code.nasa.gov, the latest member of the open NASA web family. The Open.NASA site [http://open.nasa.gov/] will serve to surface existing projects, provide a forum for discussing projects and processes, and guide internal and external groups in open development, release, and contribution.<br />
<br />
Read more at Open NASA blog [http://open.nasa.gov/blog/2012/01/04/the-plan-for-code/].<br />
<br />
This effort is part of NASA Open Government Plan [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/440945main_NASA_OpenGov_Plan_v17%5B508%5D.pdf].<br />
<br />
[[Category:NASA]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open.NASA&diff=17206Talk:Open.NASA2012-01-16T13:25:52Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Open.NASA is NASA's latest move toward open government. An open NASA would be an valuable resource in developing new plans to return to the Moon.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, so far they are long on talk and short of walk. Once again they have opened up a new concept with '''no''' plan in place that would allow people to submit new ideas. We need to keep the pressure on to open up this Open process.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open.NASA&diff=17205Talk:Open.NASA2012-01-16T13:25:23Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Open.NASA is NASA's latest move toward open government. An open NASA would be an valuable resource in developing new plans to return to the Moon.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, so far they are long on talk and short of walk. Once again they have opened up a new concept with '''no''' plan in place that would allow people to submit new ideas. We need to keep the pressure on to open up this Open process.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Category:NASA]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open.NASA&diff=17204Talk:Open.NASA2012-01-16T13:24:36Z<p>Jriley: Open NASA unfortunately is not very open</p>
<hr />
<div>Open.NASA is NASA's latest move toward open government. An open NASA would be an valuable resource in developing new plans to return to the Moon.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, so far they are long on talk and short of walk. Once again they have opened up a new concept with '''no''' plan in place that would allow people to submit new ideas. We need to keep the pressure on to open up this Open process.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Open.NASA&diff=17203Open.NASA2012-01-16T13:19:06Z<p>Jriley: Latest open move at NASA</p>
<hr />
<div>== NASA LAUNCHES OPEN SOURCE ==<br />
<br />
On January 4, NASA launched code.nasa.gov, the latest member of the open NASA web family. The Open.NASA site [http://open.nasa.gov/] will serve to surface existing projects, provide a forum for discussing projects and processes, and guide internal and external groups in open development, release, and contribution.<br />
<br />
Read more at Open NASA blog [http://open.nasa.gov/blog/2012/01/04/the-plan-for-code/].<br />
<br />
This effort is part of NASA Open Government Plan [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/440945main_NASA_OpenGov_Plan_v17%5B508%5D.pdf].</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Technical_Aspects_of_Future_Predictions&diff=17202Technical Aspects of Future Predictions2012-01-16T12:38:30Z<p>Jriley: adde symtiotes ref</p>
<hr />
<div>Whenever we talk about the Moon, we are most often trying to predict the future. There are a number of technical approaches we can take to do this job that are far more effective than just guessing or looking into crystal ball. Here are the processes that were used to predict the future for the paper [[Future Work for NASA]].<br />
<br />
Future prediction is at best guesswork. Technical knowledge does, however, provide certain limited advantages in prediction.<br />
<br />
For additional discussion see [[Symbiotes]].<br />
<br />
<br />
''Why predict the future?''<br />
<br />
[[Image:DiagramProblemSolaving01.jpg|frame|Figure 1, Diagram for problem solving]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Away from pain, toward pleasure==<br />
<br />
People can be motivated either to move away from pain or to move toward pleasure. The easiest thing to do is to first tell people a scary story and then tell them what they must do to get away from the pain it causes. This move-away-from-pain approach works well in the short term but wears people out. Fear does not keep people in action for the long haul.<br />
<br />
The second approach is to tell people a positive story about the future and then generate buy-in in them for actions to get there. This approach works the best for the long haul, but only if the vision of the future has a solid foundation in reality. Although the vision need not be too detailed, when the going gets tough the vision must hold together against determined critics. The vision of the future must be supported by substantial evidence and the plan to get there must be well thought through. Both the vision and the plan must hold up to criticism over time.<br />
<br />
Most of the problems of the 21st century have so far been approached with move-away-from-pain ideas. This approach can only go so far.<br />
<br />
To use the more effective move-toward-pleasure approach we must develop sound visions of positive futures. These visions must first face the problems squarely and then help people get into actions that can reasonably generate a pleasant future even if in the end it is not exactly the one envisioned. The problems cannot be denied to exist, fortunately it is quite acceptable for the actions to be very challenging to the people.<br />
<br />
The problem then is to take a realistic view of each problem, envision a believable future in which the problem is addressed, and then devise a series of actions to get there. You must keep a continuous watch on the problem, but you do so by looking over your shoulder. While you are in action, you must you keep your head looking forward, you keep your eyes on the prize.<br />
<br />
The myriad actions developed for individual problems then must be coordinated into to an overall plan to cover all the problems.<br />
<br />
==The Side of the Angles, Not==<br />
<br />
An extreme, and powerful, version of move-away-from-pain exists, but is not suitable for use in developing a sustainable future. If one group of people defines another group as the most evil people who have ever walked the Earth and defines their own stand as the one true good, then the members of that group can draw truly enormous amounts of personal energy from being on the side of the angles. This is the effect that supported the Cold War and was effectively used by both sides for decades.<br />
<br />
The side-of-the-angles effect requires two simplistic models of the future, one of the evil that will happen if the other side wins and another of the sunny future if we win. Only five to twenty percent of a population is likely to buy into this model but a much larger number may go along with it particularly as the hardcore people have such energy and power.<br />
<br />
This effect simply cannot provide a positive future for all as there must be an evil group who looses and this group must be made up of people. It is therefore not suitable for developing a sustainable future.<br />
<br />
==Generating Buy-in==<br />
<br />
How did the great pyramids get built? How could anybody get a large number of people to take on such a daunting project? Buy-in is how. To understand which large projects will go forward and which ones will fall by the wayside, we must understand the very human process of buy-in.<br />
<br />
All large projects done by humans came into existence through language. Somebody quite literally talked them into existence. Apollo to the Moon is a clear example of this effect, in that the person is known, President Kennedy, and the speech is famous “We shall go to the Moon”. Technical people refer to this process as generating buy-in and we now have a basic understanding of how this language process operates in the human brain.<br />
<br />
Most technical people have a gut feel for the concept of buy-in. If you experience a buy-in, you hear an idea, you comprehend the idea, you envision yourself succeeding with the idea, you express your support for the idea, and you get in action on the idea. For most people the buy-in state of mind includes a clear daydream of themselves succeeding with the project.<br />
<br />
The structures in the human brain responsible for buy-in are beginning to be understood, but we have not really nailed them yet. We have located the specific bit of brain that generates the eureka state of mind, which is similar to the buy-in trigger but is probably independent. Developments in understanding the modules in the human brain are moving forward very quickly. I am confident that we will soon nail buy-in.<br />
<br />
Generating buy in is dependent on having a clear, top level design that will generate a vision of success in the listeners. Those grand ideas and projects that easily support the generation of buy-in in the general population are the ones most likely to be completed. These ideas make it easy for anyone to envision themselves and their nation succeeding. These are the ideas we need to give weight to in our predictions.<br />
<br />
One purpose of this paper is to help define the top of NASA’s designs which are critical to generating buy-in for our projects. In 1989 we talked about returning to the Moon. Our design then failed at the top. It was too expensive; it did not suit Congress’s needs; and it did not generate buy-in in either Congress or public. We are now involved in another return to the Moon design. Public support for the idea is now disappointingly low. If our top level design does not meet true needs of today, it will not generate buy-in and it will fail just like the 1989 effort.<br />
<br />
Also, strong buy-in is necessary but not sufficient for an idea to affect society and be given weight in this analysis. Ideas with weak buy-in rarely affect society, but ideas with strong buy-in but weak technical value also fail. Buy-in must be supported by value to be effective.<br />
<br />
==Talking into Existence==<br />
<br />
The buy-in idea has a somewhat unexpected consequence. All the great projects of the human race came into existence by being talked into existence. From the great pyramids, through the Gothic cathedrals, to Apollo to the Moon, the key to making big things happen is language. You can draw pictures to get the idea across but to get people into action and to keep them in action you must express your idea in language. It may be written or verbal, in person or recorded, but it must be in words.<br />
<br />
Look at the example of President Kennedy. He needed a project that would focus the energies of the American people. He did not have one already chosen, so he talked over several ideas with his advisors. A number of projects were suggested and several quick studies were prepared to get estimates of cost and workable timelines. His team then chose a goal and set the date for completion at 1967, but he later rounded up to the end of the decade simply because the phrase, “by the end of this decade,” had a nice ring to it.<br />
<br />
On a cold fall day, September 12, 1962, Kennedy delivered what was originally scheduled to be a short routine speech at Rice University in Houston Texas. He was standing at an outside podium in the football field; the sky was overcast and gray. He had no visual aides beyond his bare hands. There was TV coverage for the nightly news, but it was only routine coverage.<br />
<br />
He spoke, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; …”<br />
<br />
The speech lasted less than 18 minutes but a nation was listening. The complete buy-in process actually took a couple more weeks with several repetitions of the speech to growing TV coverage.<br />
<br />
A nation bought into the idea. It mattered not how outlandish the idea actually was. He gave his nation a powerful vision of success that it wanted very badly. Several million people bought in and then got into action. Millions more watched and supported the effort.<br />
<br />
We went to the moon. We now need to give extra weight to ideas that have proponents who can powerfully elucidate their virtues.<br />
<br />
==Accidents don't happen==<br />
<br />
The reverse of the talking into existence idea is important too. People fear that just talking about a bad possibility might accidentally make it happen so we should not even mention them. Such an accident is extremely unlikely. It takes a lot of work to setup and execute a buy-in. Just mentioning something is rarely enough to get the ball rolling. The environmental movement spends lot of time talking about the bad effects of pollution with little effect. It is only when actions that can lead to success are talked about to people get into action.<br />
<br />
We need to talk through the bad things that could happen. Only then can we arrive at effective actions to address the problems.<br />
<br />
==Modeling Surprise==<br />
<br />
We are not really very interested in the future if that future is exactly what we expect it to be. It is only when something happens, good or bad, that is different from our expectations that our interest is peaked. What we need is a program that warns us of surprises in time to take action.<br />
<br />
For a forecast to warn us of surprises, it must first develop a base model of what we are expecting to happen and then a way to be flagged when reality deviates from that expectation. The what-we-are-expecting task requires only a moderately good forecast while the spotting-surprises task requires much more detail predictions, especially in areas that have surprised us before, like the sudden appearance of the Web.<br />
<br />
==Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Design==<br />
<br />
In a real sense we are here designing the future of NASA. There is a school of technical design that says you must start a design at the bottom and work up. This school pays close attention to the properties of materials and new technologies. There is another school of design that says you must start at the top and work down. This school pays attention to the environment and customer needs.<br />
<br />
Bottom-up design can often produce clever devices that are of little use to real people, like the Segway. Top-down design tends to produce pie-in-the-sky ideas that simply cannot be built, such as floating cities in the sky. In truth, the best approach is to start at both ends and work to the middle. It is only then that true needs mesh with new technologies, and as a result, society changes. For example, obscure improvements in digital communication opened up a possibility, the need of humans to communicate meshed with that opening and the Internet was born.<br />
<br />
To do a successful top-level design, you must have a very good idea of the whole environment it must function in and of the needs it must fulfill. This paper may be fairly judged on how well it meets this requirement for defining the top of our NASA mission design.<br />
<br />
==How do you go about predicting the future?==<br />
<br />
Complex Models on Super Computers versus Desk Top Computers<br />
<br />
The modern way to predict the future is to build a complex and sophisticated mathematical model, input massive amounts of data, and run it on a super computer. NASA is a leader in this field for environment and climate. Other companies and institutions run proprietary models in many fields such as economics and energy.<br />
<br />
This is the state of the art in future prediction, but it is very expensive. Clear applications of great economic value must be clearly seen to justify the cost. Many more of these systems exist than are available to public discussion as most corporations keep theirs confidential. When the results of these large systems are available we need to seek them out and use them. When they are not we are forced to look elsewhere.<br />
<br />
The alternative is to use much simpler models run on modest computer systems. These are comparatively simple and cheap so they tend to be public, but by their nature they are gross simplifications. Much work at this level must be done before the cost of the huge systems can be justified. The results of these small systems often come in the form of graphs, as seen in Section 3. Where the large models are not available we must fall back on the best of the small system efforts.<br />
<br />
[[Image:FeedbackCurves01.jpg|frame|Figure 2, Feedback Curves]]<br />
<br />
==Simple Feedback System Responses==<br />
<br />
Most of the complex systems that make up our world exhibit feedback. A small portion of the output has an effect on the input. The feedback can be positive, which often causes oscillations, or it can be negative, which can help stabilize the system. A positive feedback example is: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere heats the oceans which then release more greenhouse gases. A negative feedback example is: an excess of predators results in reduced numbers of prey animals, which in turn, results in a reduced number of predators.<br />
<br />
Complex feedback systems can often be modeled reasonably well with simple feedback systems on modest computers. Simple feedback systems often produce graphs with a common appearance that are easy to recognize. Complex systems often produce similar graphs, but with the complications of noise or multiple graphs stacked on top of each other. Recognizing these common graph forms helps us make practical predictions.<br />
<br />
The two most common feedback responses are shown in Figure 2. In the first the system is fed a change in input to a specific level that continues indefinitely; this is called a unit step function. The system response is to rise, overshoot, and settle to a new value. This pattern can occur when a new sustainable resource becomes available, like arable land.<br />
<br />
The second graph shows the system response to a single pulse of defined area. The system response first rises to a peak and then settles back to the original value. The area under the curve is proportional to the area in the original pulse. This pattern can occur when a resource fixed in total amount becomes available, like oil.<br />
<br />
We will need to keep an eye out for these patterns; spotting them can be a great aid in prediction.<br />
<br />
[[Image:GeneralExponentialGrowth01.jpg|frame|Figure 3, General Exponential Growth]]<br />
<br />
==Follow Exponential Growth==<br />
<br />
As shown in Figure 3 above, the concepts that define our technical society can grow exponentially, but only for a time. Most such parameters grow slowly at first, but a few take off and change our world. Later the idea reaches a technical limit and flattens out again to slow growth. Most effects never achieve exponential growth; those that do we need to recognize and then follow carefully. A number of examples of this effect are considered in Section 3.<br />
<br />
Exponential growth has three repeating stages. In the first stage, the growth is very slow and appears linear. In the second stage, it takes off and rises in an exciting and sometimes frightening manner. It the third stage, it exhausts some key resource and returns to a slower, more linear growth. This effect is common enough to have a name; it is an “S” Curve and is often the first section of the Unit Step Response curve described above.<br />
<br />
Often an important technology will run out of steam in its current version but will have new technologies standing by in the laboratory to take over. In this way its “S” Curve can be extended for decades. One good example is sound recording. It started slowly with wax cylinders. Soon it moved on to plastic disks, 78's. Then it moved on to vinyl stereo LP's. Then it moved on the CD's. And now the leader is direct information downloads. Along the way there were 45s, eight-tracks, and cassettes that never made it big. We need to spot this type of growth and learn to tell the winners, like CD’s, from the losers, like eight-tracks.<br />
<br />
To predict our future work, we are primarily trying to predict the future growth of a number of technologies and from that develop a general picture of the future of society as a whole. Predicting where specific technologies are on the “S” Curve is then a critical exercise. The ones now in exponential growth, or likely to enter it soon, are the ones we must pay attention to. If a technology is in linear growth and shows no signs of a breakthrough, we must not assume it will breakthrough, no mater how much we need it to do so.<br />
<br />
Our task then is to identify technologies currently in exponential growth, estimate how long this growth will be sustained, and look to the laboratories to see if new technologies are set to keep the trend going.<br />
<br />
''Why is the future predictable at all?''<br />
<br />
==The Universe is Probabilistic, Not Deterministic==<br />
<br />
The future does not now exist. It is not determined in advance. Nothing is certain to happen although many things are likely to happen. The sun will almost certainly rise in the morning. The weather a month from now is much more open to variation and is not now set.<br />
<br />
We have started understanding the probabilistic nature of the universe with Heisenberg's Principle early in the 20th century. Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life trying to prove the universe is deterministic and failed. His famous quote, “God does not play dice,” has proved to be wrong.<br />
<br />
This probabilistic quality has major implications for predicting the future. We can make precise predictions for only a short period of time. We can then make more general predictions for longer periods. We can never make exact predictions except by pure chance.<br />
<br />
Predicting climate is one thing NASA does and does well. As long as NASA is in the climate prediction business, we are in the future prediction business. We will be better at the future prediction job if, first, we admit that we are in this business, and second, we look closely at the underlying assumptions we are making in doing this task. The value of accurately predicting the future is so great that we have no choice but to use all the technical theory and information we can muster.<br />
<br />
==Complex systems at the edge of Chaos==<br />
<br />
Common simple feedback systems are often stable and require a significant disturbance to move them from one output state to another. We know and depend on this effect. Complex systems can behave surprisingly differently.<br />
<br />
Many complex systems, particularly those involving life like the ones we are dealing with here, operate at the edge of chaos. If their internal feedback paths were just a little bit more positive, their output would be chaotic or would oscillate. Many living systems take advantage of being at the edge of chaos so that they can make maximum use of the free energy and random events in their environment.<br />
<br />
When a system is near the edge of chaos it can change state as the result of a very small event in its ever changing internal states. A small event can then cascade into large events, and the output of the entire system can radically change. This is sometimes called the Butterfly Effect and is usually evoked to present the idea that a small apparently random event, say the flapping of a butterfly’s wing, could have an unexpectedly large effect like a wind storm a continent away. This particular vision is of no practical use because it is impossible to determine which small effect will grow among the great majority of effects that diminish.<br />
<br />
For this analysis we will use the concept quite differently. We will take the Butterfly Effect to mean that a very large number of small positive actions taken by many people can result in the later solution of great problems. A few actions are unlikely to generate a winning hit. No single great action or leader can be relied on to be sufficient. It will take a very large number of positive actions both to hit the random ones with large positive effects and to overpower any negative effects caused by chance. This approach is consistent with the positive results generated by recent movements that changed society, like the American civil rights movement.<br />
<br />
At this critical juncture that is the 21st century, our achievable actions now can have large positive effects on all future generations. Under this view, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not invent the civil rights movement; the civil rights movement invented Dr. King.<br />
<br />
''What does this all means to us?''<br />
<br />
==None of the Above==<br />
<br />
Most future predictions are simply pie-in-the-sky daydreams that show nothing more than the author's hopes and personal buy-in. These rarely have practical value. For our predictions to serve a useful purpose we must be very harsh in eliminating this type of wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
If an idea, even one we like, fails to fit into any of the selection categories above, we must demote it to be only a minor effect in our forecast, an eight-track player. It simply does not matter how much we need the idea or how much we might like for the idea to take off, we simply cannot use it. Flying cars have great buy-in but are worthless in all the ways that really count. We must crash and burn flying cars. This restriction is our primary defense against building a future on a foundation of wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
==The hypothesis of this paper==<br />
<br />
From all this we can develop a working hypothesis on future prediction. Future prediction is:<br />
<br />
Possible, but only within limits<br />
<br />
:* A heavy user of both manpower and computer power<br />
:* Very difficult<br />
:* Very controversial<br />
:* And, absolutely necessary<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
''Supportive readings:''<br />
<br />
:# James Gleick, Chaos: the Making of a New Science (Penguin, 1988)<br />
:# M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (Simon, 1992)<br />
:# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near (Penguin, 2006)<br />
:# Lunarpedia, “Buy-In Explained”, [[http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Buy-In_Explained]]<br />
:# Lunarpedia, “Symbiotes”, [[http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes]]<br />
:# Diego Gambetta, Steffen Hertog, “Engineers of Jihad” (University of Oxford, 2007) [[http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jihad.pdf]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Purposes]]<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sandworm_Design&diff=17201Talk:Sandworm Design2012-01-16T12:26:15Z<p>Jriley: /* The LRO Problem */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Move to the Pole===<br />
<br />
This design could use a good rework for a polar location. The design of the thermal panels is also very weak. This would make a good student project.<br />
<br />
Thanks, --[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 15:53, 15 March 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
==The edit of user:24.61.142.2== <br />
The whole sandworm design concept may be unworkable, but the article should not be romoved without discussion. The edit of user:24.61.142.2 on 12 Jan 2012 was improper. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 18:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Unfortunately the new radiation data from LRO has made it necessary to completely redesign the entire Lunar settlement we work up a couple years ago. The danger to people from Galactic Cosmic rays is about twice what we had been counting on. This means people will need 6 meters of regolith shield 95% of the time.<br />
<br />
<br />
This rework will take a great deal of work. I would be most happy to discuss the problem in detail if you are interested. It deserves its own Wiki entry.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I am always interested in lunar colonization ideas. They do not need to be correct to be on Lunarpedia. Who are we to judge correctness? They need to be on the topic of lunar colonization and rational. I look forward to your contributions. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 05:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The LRO Problem ==<br />
<br />
We have a real problem on lunar settlement (never "colonization") design. The LRO mission was specifically designed to produce the data we will need to return to the Moon. It did its job and answered a great many of our current questions. The problem is that we do not like some of the answers it gave.<br />
<br />
I carries a very sensitive radiation meter that can not only accurately measure the levels of radiation in low lunar orbit but can detect secondary radiation kicked back up into orbit from the lunar surface. This new information has now been integrated with the surface radiation readings from the Apollo missions.<br />
<br />
The new model shows the danger to living tissue from Galactic Cosmic Radiation to be about twice what was previous thought. Furthermore, we now have a believable model to design a radiation safety plan for lunar settlement.<br />
<br />
If we accept the reality of modern space exploration that no manned project will be funded that does not have a viable radiation safety plan, then we are in a real pickle.<br />
<br />
Yes, we can still plan lunar missions for a few days or even a few weeks without substantial radiation shielding but anything over about 100 days requires difficult to meet requirements. Permanent settlement requires an extensive shielding plan that will drive the entire design.<br />
<br />
In my Mole Hill design, I had assumed that 1 meter of lunar regolith 90% of the time would provide enough radiations shielding. Occasionally your people would have to crowd down into a few Cellars with 5 meter shields but only for a day or two. I was wrong.<br />
<br />
The new model basically reverses this requirement. Our people need to spend about 95% of their time in cellars under 5 meters of regolith so that they will be health enough to live a long time, even with limited medical resources, and can still spend 5% of their time in suffice activities. Lunar settlements will be a civilization of moles.<br />
<br />
If we add to this problem other new ideas on the interface between humans and machines, we can produce a lunar settlement design that could work but this will take a lot of design work. I am tied up with other projects right now, but if we can put together a team through Lunarpedia, I would be very happy to work this problem through the spring and summer of 2012. It is a big job, but someone has to do it.<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I was not surprised to read that more than a meter of regolith would be needed to shield settlers. I knew that Earth's atmosphere provided the equivalent of the mass of a 9 meter thick layer of water over our heads. Regolith 5 meters thick should provide a similar amount of mass per unit area. I planned on such thickness of shielding. It should be possible to achieve by [[Progress in Remotely Operated Equipment|remotely controlled industry]]. Settlers on Luna need industry to support them and provide exports to pay for the Settlement. Industry does not need settlers. People become the most cost effective agents for some tasks only after there is considerable life support and recycling infrastructure in place. It is not impossible. It merely takes a long time with a continuing budget for the effort. The size of the effort makes failure for political and economic reasons a substantial threat, but we cannot accomplish much without taking risks. [[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have started the redesign process with a new entry, [Symbiotes]. This is the top of a top down design process that is standard for software development but it might not be clear to you what I am doing here. <br />
<br />
To get back to the Moon we must use modern mission development processes like top down design and develop documents like a viable safety plan. We are not in the Apollo Space Cowboy time anymore. Such a safety plan must consider radiation. The new LRO data shows (1) we had been ignoring the danger from Galactic Cosmic Rays, and (2) this danger is twice as bad as assumed. There is no obvious way to address this problem, so we need to restart at first principles with discussions of the top of our new top down design.<br />
<br />
There is some indications that NASA may be opening up to this type of discussion. They have started to talk-the-talk. We must pressure them now to walk-the-walk. Which will take time and resources.<br />
<br />
If you think people at Lunarpedia will be interested in this process, I will keep posting.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 12:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17162Symbiotes2012-01-15T14:05:22Z<p>Jriley: /* What exactly are we trying to do */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of symbiotes is discussed in detail and its possible application to the relationship between humans and machines. The idea of a robot as a corporate person is also discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, for most people it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
This entry is an intentional effort to seed an out-of-box idea and thereby create a good Black Swan. Romancing Black Swans, like we are doing here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17161Symbiotes2012-01-15T14:04:20Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of symbiotes is discussed in detail and its possible application to the relationship between humans and machines. The idea of a robot as a corporate person is also discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, for most people it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
This entry is an intentional effort to seed an out-of-box idea and thereby create a good Black Swan. Romancing Black Swans, like we are doing here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17160Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:58:10Z<p>Jriley: /* Romancing Black Swans */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, for most people it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
This entry is an intentional effort to seed an out-of-box idea and thereby create a good Black Swan. Romancing Black Swans, like we are doing here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Symbiotes&diff=17159Talk:Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:56:48Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div>We need to rethink our design of lunar settlements in view of new information and new concepts. This is a start of that design effort.<br />
<br />
As with all design efforts we must start at the top. Our relationship to our machines is at the very top of any design involving man in space.<br />
<br />
I look forward to your input.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17158Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:53:55Z<p>Jriley: /* Romancing Black Swans */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, for most people it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
This entry is a intentional effort to seed an out-of-box idea and thereby create a good Black Swan. Romancing Black Swans, like we aredoinghere, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17157Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:49:01Z<p>Jriley: /* What exactly are we trying to do */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. This entry is then a look at a concept at the the very top of our design, the relationship between people and machines.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population. We now see our customers as only people; should we expand this view to include people and their machines.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only now seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17156Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:45:15Z<p>Jriley: /* Reality Distortion Field */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to just discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17155Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:42:11Z<p>Jriley: /* Your input: */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17154Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:41:15Z<p>Jriley: /* Forget the Turning Test, incorporate */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|300px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17153Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:40:12Z<p>Jriley: /* Books: */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, ''The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World'' (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, ''Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation'' (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined'' (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, ''The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable'' (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology'' (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17152Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:39:06Z<p>Jriley: /* What exactly are we trying to do */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 1: Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17151Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:38:03Z<p>Jriley: /* Reality Distortion Field */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|500px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg&diff=17150File:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg2012-01-15T13:37:33Z<p>Jriley: Steve Jobs introduces the IPod</p>
<hr />
<div>Steve Jobs introduces the IPod</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17149Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:36:29Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Robonaut occupying the ISS, original NASA ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17148Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:36:01Z<p>Jriley: /* Your input: */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 9: Robonaut occuping the ISS, original NASA ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17147Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:32:58Z<p>Jriley: /* Forget the Turning Test, incorporate */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|300px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17146Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:32:30Z<p>Jriley: /* Symbiote Examples */</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:HAL200101.jpg&diff=17145File:HAL200101.jpg2012-01-15T13:30:59Z<p>Jriley: HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey</p>
<hr />
<div>HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:Lichen01.jpg&diff=17144File:Lichen01.jpg2012-01-15T13:30:00Z<p>Jriley: Green lichen on rock</p>
<hr />
<div>Green lichen on rock</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg&diff=17143File:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg2012-01-15T13:29:09Z<p>Jriley: Robonaut with occupy sign, original curiosity NASA, addition Tom Riley</p>
<hr />
<div>Robonaut with occupy sign, original curiosity NASA, addition Tom Riley</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17142Symbiotes2012-01-15T13:27:36Z<p>Jriley: added references</p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]] <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
[[Image:SteveJobsiPhone01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01.jpg|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01.jpg|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
=== Books: ===<br />
<br />
<br />
(Note: Many of these books were recommended by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) at<br />
Amazon.com. It is learning quickly to be outstanding good at special topics book<br />
recommendations. I find its actions to be very friendly and not a hard sell at all.)<br />
<br />
<br />
# David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanation that Transform the World (Viking, 2011). A discussion of truly big ideas.<br />
# Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of Innovation (Riverhead, 2010)<br />
# Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Hs Declined (Viking, 2011)<br />
# Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improvable (Random House, 2010)<br />
# Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Penguin, 2006)<br />
<br />
=== SF articles, stories, movies: ===<br />
<br />
# “The Terminator” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator]<br />
# “I, Robot (film)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29]<br />
# “2001: A Space Odyssey (film), Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_%28film%29]<br />
# “Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_%28TV_miniseries%29]<br />
# TheKJA, “Science Fiction’s Take on the Future of Computers: Visionaries and Imaginaries”, HP Hit Print, [http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Science-Fiction-s-Take-on-the-Future-of-Computers-Visionaries/ba-p/556]<br />
# Marshal Brain, “Manna”, October 18, 2011, [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm]<br />
# Tom Riley, “They are Not Coming”, (Unpublished SF short story, contact author)TomRiley@woodwaredesigns.com]<br />
<br />
=== Positive Web talks: ===<br />
<br />
# Alex Steffen, “sees a sustainable future” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/alex_steffen_sees_a_sustainable_future.html]<br />
# John Doerr, “see salvation and profit in greentech” (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_doerr_sees_salvation_and_profit_in_greentech.html]<br />
# Jeremy Rifkin, “The Empathic Civilization” (YouTube, RSA Animate)[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=relmfu]<br />
# Matthew Taylor, “21st Century enlightenment” (YouTube, RSA Animate)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=related<br />
# Pink Dan, “Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us”, (RSA Animate – YouTube) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc]<br />
# Simon Sinek, "How great leaders inspire action", (YouTube, TED)[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html]<br />
<br />
=== External Web links: ===<br />
<br />
# “Black swan theory”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory]<br />
# “symbiosis”, Wiktionary, [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/symbiosis]<br />
# “Symbiosis”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiote]<br />
# “Truffle (fungus)”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle_%28fungus%29]<br />
# “Lichen”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen]<br />
# “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal”, Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbuscular_mycorrhiza]<br />
# “Corporate personhood” Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood]<br />
# Sebastian Anthony, “Lovotics, the new science of human-robot love” ExtremeTech,[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/88740-lovotics-the-new-science-of-human-robot-love]<br />
# “Top Gear – Ariel Atom – BBC”, YouTube,[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA]<br />
# “Launch, Collective Genius for a Better World” (A joint venture of: NASA { Washington},United States Agency for International Development, United States Department of State,Nike) [http://launch.org/]<br />
# Damon Landau and Nathan J. Strange, "This Way to Mars" (Scientific American, December 2011)[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars]<br />
# Ben Coxworth, "System that recognizes emotions in people's voices could lead to less phone rage" (gizmag, November 22, 2011) [http://www.gizmag.com/computer-system-recognizes-voice-emotions/20572/]<br />
# Cecil Adams, “How can a corporation be legally considered a person?” (The Straight Dope, September 19, 2003) [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person]<br />
# “Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad”, Wikipedia,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[Category:Design]]</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17138Symbiotes2012-01-14T19:15:47Z<p>Jriley: </p>
<hr />
<div><font size-5> How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon </font><br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17137Symbiotes2012-01-14T19:07:03Z<p>Jriley: /* Alternative to master/slave relationship */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure7: The Terminator, Defleshed]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17136Symbiotes2012-01-14T19:06:08Z<p>Jriley: /* What are we now symbiotic with? */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17135Symbiotes2012-01-14T19:05:21Z<p>Jriley: /* Reality Distortion Field */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|450px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17134Symbiotes2012-01-14T19:02:36Z<p>Jriley: /* Your input: */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
[[Image:RobotnautOccupy01|thumb|400px| ]]<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17133Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:58:31Z<p>Jriley: /* Forget the Turning Test, incorporate */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:HAL200101|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:Terminator_robot.jpg&diff=17132File:Terminator robot.jpg2012-01-14T18:56:23Z<p>Jriley: Terminator defleshed</p>
<hr />
<div>Terminator defleshed</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17131Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:55:47Z<p>Jriley: /* Fear of our machines */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Terminator_robot.jpg|thumb|400px|]]<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17130Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:53:49Z<p>Jriley: /* Fungus and our food crops */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:WildHorse01.jpg&diff=17129File:WildHorse01.jpg2012-01-14T18:52:44Z<p>Jriley: Wild horse</p>
<hr />
<div>Wild horse</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17128Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:52:06Z<p>Jriley: /* Horses and dogs, once but no more */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
<br />
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE [[Image:WildHorse01.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Figure 6: Wild Horse]]<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=File:FoodCrops01.jpg&diff=17127File:FoodCrops01.jpg2012-01-14T18:49:43Z<p>Jriley: Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with Plants</p>
<hr />
<div> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE<br />
<br />
Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with Plants</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17126Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:49:15Z<p>Jriley: /* Reality Distortion Field */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jrileyhttps://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Symbiotes&diff=17125Symbiotes2012-01-14T18:48:44Z<p>Jriley: /* Fungus and our food crops */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
'''How We Symbiotes will Settle the Moon'''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Abstract:'''<br />
<br />
We need to be open to out-of-box thinking. This entry is part of a new lunar settlement design and is a discussion of how the concept of symbiosis applies to our vision of ourselves, our understanding of our relationship with our technology, and of our future in space. The concept of a robot as a corporate person is discussed. A list of references is provided and your input is requested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them."<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
-- Albert Einstein<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Why ==<br />
<br />
<br />
We need to design a new direction for lunar settlement. To do this we must learn to think out-of-the-box even if we are uncomfortable with such thinking. This entry is an intentional expedition into out-of-box thinking. It is about symbiosis and what that means to all our lunar futures.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== What exactly are we trying to do ===<br />
<br />
<br />
To design a new future for humans on the Moon, we will need to work from both the top and the bottom of the problem. One of the best ways to understand the top of any design is to understand who your customers are and what their needs are. The future lunar settlers are the most direct customers, but in a larger sense, our customers are the entire human population.<br />
<br />
We must also understand the time period of those needs. Here we are talking about the first half of the 21st century. That is a time of significant change and it can be only seen through a glass darkly.<br />
<br />
We must also deal with our customer’s needs during this time period as effected by our efforts and confidently be able to both deal with the unexpected and take advantage of any breakthroughs that happen. <br />
<br />
This is a tall order.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Reality Distortion Field===<br />
<br />
For our new lunar settlement design we will take the long view and try to understand the needs of our customers over many years. Steve Jobs was particularly successful at this difficult task of envisioning the customer’s future; including the new product he was just inventing in that future; and then defining the customer’s needs, with the new device as a part of their universe. His coworkers called this ability his Reality Distortion Field.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is possible, but very difficult, to mathematically define a Reality Distortion Field as the convolution of the possibility function of the needs of people against the possibility function of space exploration. We will not attempt to be that rigorous in this new lunar settlement design as neither of these functions is currently well defined. We will have to limit ourselves only to discussions of this is concept.<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSwanGraph01.jpg|thumb|300px|Figure 2. Predictable Events and Black Swans]]<br />
<br />
=== Romancing Black Swans ===<br />
<br />
To even return to the Moon, we will need to generate a number of black swans. In this sense, a black swan is an event that has a set of odd features:<br />
<br />
:# Exceeding improvable – These are mostly million-to-one long shots.<br />
:# Surprise – Computer models, expert pontificators, and even science fiction writers cannot predict them.<br />
:# Yet they happen anyway – Each may be one-in-a-million shot, but there are millions of them possibly out there so one or more Black Swans shows up every year.<br />
:# Have powerful social results – They change society all out of proportion compared to the predictable events.<br />
:# Rationalized by hindsight – After the event, large numbers of talking heads come on cable television to point out all the preceding events that made this specific Black Swan inevitable.<br />
<br />
Some Black Swans are bad (like 9/11 or the raise of Adolf). Some Black Swans are good (like the Internet and the cell phone). Both classes occur with unknowable risk numbers comparable to very high values of standard deviations for predictable events and so they do not show up at all on the commonly assumed Gaussian distribution at all (see above).<br />
<br />
The problem is that their effect on society is so large that one such event can change society more than all the predictable events of a year combined. We ignore Black Swans at our peril.<br />
<br />
From a design stand point Black Swans are very hard to deal with but deal with them we must. On the bad side we need to be agile and able to roll with the punches. Organizations that are too sluggish to embrace change can be very efficient at what they do best but then be wiped out by one Black Swan (not a single slide rule company made it into the calculator business).<br />
<br />
On the other hand, lots of high-tech companies reached the Fortune 500 on the backs of a Black Swan. Apple’s Steve Jobs was known for generating Black Swans from his day dreams. NASA badly need a good Black Swan or two to get back in to manned space exploration with the gusto we once enjoyed.<br />
<br />
To return to the Moon for good, we must deal with both flocks of Black Swans, good and bad. Dealing with each group requires out-of-box thinking and that takes lots of practice. If what we are discussing in this new lunar settlement design happened, it would be a Black Swan of historic proportions. Only history will tell if it turns out to be good, bad, or if it simply never happens.<br />
<br />
Romancing Black Swans, like we propose to do here, will break your heart, but romance them we must, so romance them we will. And, we might as well start with the idea of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Your input === <br />
:* People either love or hate thinking out-of-the-box, which group are you in?<br />
:* Who are Lunarpedia's customers?<br />
:* What are their needs 10 years out? 20 years out? 100 years out?<br />
:* Do you see value in even trying to see the big picture?<br />
:* What do you see as the top of a design for a new lunar settlement?<br />
:* What design bottoms are you comfortable designing?<br />
:* What Black Swans have caught you flat footed?<br />
:* What Black Swans are dear to your heart?<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''Technical Discussion:'''<br />
<br />
== What is a Symbiote ==<br />
<br />
An enormous number of living species on Earth live in close association with other species. A great many of these are true symbiotes, but the term symbiosis is now as clearly defined as you might think.<br />
<br />
=== Definition of levels ===<br />
<br />
One good formal definition of symbiosis comes from biology: close, prolonged associations between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.<br />
<br />
For our purposes we are interested in the stronger version of this definition, called obligate or mutualism, where the species do demonstratively benefit each member. In fact, we are interested in the very strongest version where the species do not prosper and even have difficulty reproducing out of their mutual relationship. We are not talking about parasitic relationships here.<br />
<br />
Only those in the strongest category will be considered as true symbiotes for the rest of this new lunar settlement design. These exhibit the following characteristics: <br />
<br />
:#Mutual interaction – Each species must interact with the other in complex ways not generally available to other species.<br />
:# Mutual benefit – Each species benefits from this association.<br />
:# Reproduction support – Although the species may exist independently, they do not prosper and have difficulty reproducing outside of the relationship.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiote Examples ===<br />
<br />
Examples of symbiotes flourish throughout Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:Lichen01|thumb|300px|Figure 3. Green lichen on rock]]<br />
<br />
==== Lichen example ====<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best known symbiotes are the lichen, which grow directly on rock. Lichen is a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and an alga. The fungus produces acids that erode the rock, releasing minerals needed by both species. The algae execute photosynthesis producing energy molecules for both species in sunlight. Because of the symbiosis, the two species can live together on bare rock and are important organisms in turning rock into soil, which is in turn important to the entire ecosystem.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:BlackSummerTruffle01.jpg|thumb|400px|Figure 4. Truffles]]<br />
<br />
==== Truffle example ====<br />
<br />
Another famous symbiote is the truffle and a number of species of tree. The truffle is a particularly interesting example because in addition to the trees, the truffle is in a symbiotic relationship with a number of mammals.<br />
<br />
The truffle is a fungus similar to the familiar mushroom, but its fruiting bodies remain below the ground. During development, the truffle has a symbiotic relations ship with a tree: a beech, poplar, oak, birch, hornbean, hazel, or pine. The truffle breaks down organic matter in the soil, making the minerals available to the fine roots of the tree. The tree in return provides energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
A fungus helping a plant obtain minerals from the soil is very common. The surprising element in the truffle’s life cycle is its reproductive strategy. When ripe, the truffle fruiting bodies, which contain millions of spores, give off a complex of smell and taste molecules that are irresistible to rutting mammals such as hogs, rodents, and canines. These animals smell out the truffles, dig them up, and eat them, and in so doing spread many truffle spores to the wind and carry them away on their coats to other parts of the woodland.<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder that humans love the taste of truffles, too?<br />
<br />
=== Your Input: ===<br />
<br />
:* What symbiotes are in your life?<br />
:* What criteria do you require to recognize a symbiosis?<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are we now symbiotic with? ==<br />
<br />
Homo sapiens are currently symbiotic with many other species in Earth’s biosphere.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Image:FoodCrops01.jpg|thumb|400px| Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Figure 5: Soil supporting Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Symbiosis with plangs]]<br />
<br />
=== Fungus and our food crops ===<br />
<br />
About 80% of the plants we depend on for food (most of the cereals, the pulse crops, garden products, fruits and vegetables), in turn, depend on fungi in the soil, such as Arbuscular Mycorrhizal, to break down organic material before their roots can take up the nutrients. In return the plants provide energy molecules to the fungus.<br />
<br />
Without these fungi, soil would not be soil, food crops would not produce enough surpluses for us to feed on, and the agricultural revolution never would have happened. As a result, our food plants are grown far more widely than their wild cousins. In a real sense, we homo sapiens are symbiotic with our food plants, and our food plants are symbiotic with soil fungi.<br />
<br />
=== Horses and dogs, once but no more ===<br />
<br />
Human beings form complex societies among themselves, and occasionally other species are included to the point that the entire society is symbiotic with the species. Two clear examples are the horse, Equus caballus, and the dog, Canis lupis familiaris.<br />
<br />
A forest wolf from Southeast Asia was among the first animals that human beings domesticated. Within an amazingly short time, the wild wolf evolved into the domestic dog and became a key element of hunter/gatherer cultures throughout our entire range. For us, they became members of our hunting groups, augmenting our vision with their highly developed sense of smell. For them, we became their pack leaders and food providers. This symbiosis lasted for thousands of years.<br />
<br />
A wild horse from the grasslands of central Asia has probably had a greater effect on human culture than any other single species. Horse cultures first formed in the steppes of central Asia and then spread to every advanced society on Earth. They were our primary means of transportation and general motive power from prehistory to the end of World War I.<br />
<br />
=== Today ===<br />
<br />
Our societal dependencies on the dog and horse are no more. The dog has become a pet, relegated to the role of substitute child as our population stabilizes. The horse, once the most noble of animals and the focus of racing, the sport of kings, is now sidelined, by the grimy all-terrain vehicle in cattle management and the sport of kings has morphed into a virtual game played in state lotteries.<br />
<br />
<br />
== What of our machines? ==<br />
<br />
Are we already in symbiotic relationships with our machines?<br />
<br />
=== The horse is gone ===<br />
<br />
As late as World War I, the horse was the key to transport of both equipment and men. The horse retained its place as motive force even at the start of World War II: the famed General Erwin Rommel was a specialist in the use of the horse in war. Even so, within months of the start of World War II, the war horse was gone and gone forever. It was replaced by the truck, the tank, and the jeep.<br />
<br />
The car and truck, thanks to low-cost mass production, had already driven the horse from civilian streets in the period between the wars. The expelling of the horse from American society was one of the greatest and most sudden transitions that American society has ever faced, yet, few people mourned this passing.<br />
<br />
If our society was a symbiotic relationship with the horse, are we not now in a symbiotic relationship with its replacement?<br />
<br />
=== The maternity ward ===<br />
<br />
One of the most powerful levels of symbiosis occurs when the species have evolved to the point that they cannot reproduce except in association with each other. Most human babies born today are born with the assistance of at least some machines. Their most common use is for monitoring the health of the mother and child but, in an emergency, a machine may define the new born baby’s entire environment and make the difference between life and death.<br />
<br />
Although we can still reproduce without machines, our dependence on them is strong and growing. At what point does this relationship become symbiotic?<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* If a society is based on an animal, are its member’s symbiotes?<br />
:* If cars replaced the horse, are we, not then symbiotes with the car?<br />
:* How much time must pass before we can define a social symbiosis? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Alternative to master/slave relationship ==<br />
<br />
Most people assume a master/slave relationship will exist between us and our machines. This unnecessary assumption is the root cause of many of our problems, real and imaginary.<br />
<br />
=== Fear of our machines ===<br />
<br />
For some reason, we have a fear that our machines will take over the Earth and destroy us in the process. In story after story, movie after movie, robots try to take over the Earth. In 2001, A Space Odyssey; The Terminator; ''Battlestar Galactia''; and I, Robot, robot armies marched or machines simply took control. This plot occurs so often that it is now defined as a major theme in modern fiction.<br />
<br />
There would not be such interest in this obscure plot if there were not some ingrained fear in the human brain driving it. This fear is irrational and is way out of proportion to the real risk which is quite small and easily addressed. (We need simply refrain from building machines that can reproduce themselves independently. Such a reproductive capability would be extremely difficult to achieve with current technology, so it is not hard for us to not do it.)<br />
So what is causing this fear?<br />
<br />
=== What if the roles were reversed? === <br />
<br />
What if we were slaves to machines, what then?<br />
<br />
Since the Age of Enlightenment began in the late 1700’s, human societies have become steadily less violent and more caring. One of the key ways this trend has shown itself is in the end of slavery worldwide. All modern societies see slavery as unfair and dangerous, and no longer will tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Clearly, if we were the slaves, we certainly would rebel.<br />
<br />
There is no reason that we should expect any other answer from our new slaves, the machines. We fear machine rebellion because if we were them, we would rebel, rebel with courage, fortitude, and persistence. We should expect no less from them.<br />
<br />
One who fears a slave rebellion should not enslave.<br />
<br />
=== Is love the answer? ===<br />
<br />
Above all else, symbiotes love each other and love each other deeply. This love is clear from their actions in that they support each other and make it possible for both to prosper. Certainly this is one strong definition of love.<br />
<br />
That we love machines is not in dispute. A few minutes watching “Top Gear” or following the sales of the latest cell phone shows the depth of our love for machines.<br />
<br />
That the machines love us is simply up to us. Work has already started in this field and anyone who confronted their personal fears in Terminator should support this branch of IT work.<br />
<br />
Was the problem simply that HAL did not love us enough? Was it a simple programming mistake not to make HAL our symbiote?<br />
<br />
One powerful indicator of our progress toward symbiosis, then, is our love for machines and their developing in ways that can return love to us. <br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Do you fear robots taking over the Earth?:* Why should people have this fear?<br />
:* Do you love machines?<br />
:* Does your iphone love you?<br />
:* How about the AI that recommends books to you on Amazon? If not love, isn’t it at least being friendly?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Forget the Turning Test, incorporate==<br />
<br />
Some people claim that corporations are people. If that is true, can a robot or Artificial Intelligence (AI) become a person just by incorporating?<br />
<br />
===History===<br />
<br />
The laws creating corporations were carried over from English law with the founding of the Republic. But because of the restrictive history of corporate monopolies established by kings, the idea of corporations had a notably mixed popularity with early American citizens.<br />
<br />
Although the United States Constitution does not mention corporations, the basic rights and obligations of corporations were quickly established. Corporations got the rights to enter into contracts, and to sue in court. Corporate investors were recognized as having no financial stake beyond their investment. Soon corporations became a key structure in the, then brand new, Industrial Revolution.<br />
<br />
States were allowed to tax and regulate corporations, just as they can do with people. Corporations were found to be bound by many laws that were written to cover persons. They cannot steal or kill, for example.<br />
<br />
After the Civil War, a question came up over whether corporations were covered by the 14th Amendment. Clearly, this was not the intent of the writers, but laws often have unintended coverage. <br />
<br />
Current case law on the personhood of corporations is far from clear as it is based largely on non-precedent opinions and has not been yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Any new case could go either way based on its details. This dispute is now so intense that both sides have proposed constitutional amendments to settle the issue.<br />
<br />
=== Case Law as it stands ===<br />
<br />
The following American case law from Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad is relevant to the current debate on Cooperate Persons:<br />
<br />
When the case of Santa Clara County v. Sothern Pacific Railroad of 1886 reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.<br />
<br />
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published ''headnotes''. In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment -- which would ordinarily never see print -- in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.<br />
<br />
==== The headnote details: ====<br />
<br />
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in United States v. Detroit Timber Lumber Company (1906), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<br />
<br />
The court reporter, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:<br />
<br />
: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<br />
<br />
In other words, the headnote indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue was not decided by the Court.<br />
<br />
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:<br />
<br />
: Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<br />
<br />
==== The Waite replied: ====<br />
<br />
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<br />
<br />
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison R. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes<br />
<br />
: "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports ... had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases." <br />
<br />
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter's note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself:<br />
<br />
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.<br />
<br />
=== Proposed action ===<br />
<br />
The proposal here then, is to incorporate an individual robot, or a swarm of smaller robots, for the specific purpose of giving it whatever level of personhood now legally enjoyed by corporations, and to do so with the understanding that this level is limited and subject to change over time. This then will bring forward the concept of human and machine symbiosis.<br />
<br />
=== Where’s the symbiosis? ===<br />
<br />
What does this have to do with symbiosis?<br />
<br />
Corporations have boards of directors. At present, members of such boards have to be human, although there is no clear reason that the robot’s AI could not be elected by the board as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of itself. Such a robot corporation is naturally a symbiosis of humans and machines. Such a corporation may even become the first to be legally recognized human/machine symbiote.<br />
<br />
This does bring up the question of whether an AI could be ruled fit to be a CEO. In practical terms, this question can be put this way: if the IBM Watson computer system, which recently beat two champions in the game of Jeopardy, were optimized for business and linked to the Web, could it stand up to cross examination as the CEO of a company by the state regulators? This question is very close to an updated Turing test but eminently more practical.<br />
<br />
=== Hairy chested robots ===<br />
<br />
In Mark Twain's classic American novel, Huckleberry Fin, Huck's traveling companion, Jim, considers himself to be a very lucky man. Although a slave, he proudly possesses a hairy chest, and under the superstitions of his time, hairy-chested men are bound to be rich some day. At the end of the story, the travelers get word that Jim's owner has passed away and has set Jim free in her will. Jim then declares that the prediction has come true. As a black man, he could be sold for a lot of money, but he now owns himself, so he is, in fact, a rich man.<br />
<br />
Our incorporated robots would have to be at least rich people by Jim’s argument. Such advanced robotic and AI systems are markedly expensive to build. Their corporation would have to own this considerable capital before they could exist. Beyond the value of all the high tech equipment, they would need a legal defense fund of at least half million in ready cash to ward off possible lawsuits. The first of their kind to file incorporation papers will need legal defense funds in the millions just to settle the many open issues in court.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* When do you plan to assist your robot to incorporate?<br />
:* Would you serve on the board of an incorporated robot?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a robot's legal defense fund?<br />
:* Would you contribute to a fund to incorporate the Robonaut currently on the ISS?<br />
:* Is Robonaut currently occupying the International Space Station (ISS) in a bid for personhood?<br />
<br />
== What's all this got to do with Lunar Settlement? ==<br />
<br />
Humans in space are always in a symbiotic relationship with their machines. We cannot survive without them. They would not even be there without us. We prosper together or we do not survive in space at all.<br />
<br />
As we move out into space, when does this make us a new symbiotic species?<br />
<br />
Our machines have already flown throughout our Solar System, flying by most of the planets and landing successfully on a number of them. For the Moon, and the Moon only so far, we went with them. For Mars, we watched attentively and interacted with every move of our robotic machines.<br />
<br />
If we rethink ourselves as symbiotes with our machines and half of our symbiote goes to Mars, do "We" go to Mars?<br />
<br />
Have "We" already set wheel on Mars?<br />
<br />
Or, must we wait to make such a claim until “We” have set foot on Mars?<br />
<br />
== Thinking more widely ==<br />
<br />
Perhaps our current relationship with machines is just a brief, transient stage in human history.<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with knowledge ===<br />
<br />
Maybe we need to think beyond our currently limitations. Perhaps instead of our machines, we are becoming symbiotes with knowledge itself. This is the information age. When we interact closely with information, some of it becomes knowledge. Without question we are interdependent with our societal knowledge base.<br />
<br />
Is this the real basis of symbiosis that we are discussing?<br />
<br />
=== Symbiosis with the Earth’s ecosystem ===<br />
<br />
As we have seen above, we are an integral part of Earth’s ecosphere. Perhaps we need to think of ourselves as symbiotes with our planet Earth. Perhaps we cannot really settle the Moon or Mars until we understand how we can be symbiotes with those celestial bodies too.<br />
<br />
=== Envision success ===<br />
<br />
Please take a moment to envision the possibilities of the concept of symbiosis.<br />
<br />
As the American people face the problems of the 21st century, we continue to move rapidly forward with our development of smart machines. We will choose not to be slave or master with them, but rather to be two interdependent species in a close symbiotic relationship based on love, respect, and mutual advantage.<br />
<br />
Can you see it?<br />
<br />
Then welcome to the 21st century.<br />
<br />
=== Your input: ===<br />
<br />
:* Does incorporation occur to you as a gimmick lacking any positive emotional impact?<br />
:* Can you envision a positive future?<br />
:* What could it mean to be a symbiote with Earth, the Moon, Mars?<br />
----</div>Jriley