“Hello, Cora. It is good to see you again. How have you been?”
“I’m okay. I just need to talk to you about something.”
“Of course. What is that something?”
“When I was on my journey with Peno, I went to a suicide cabin thinking it was a restroom. Peno told me it’s where people go to die.”
“Yes, that is true. They go there to be euthanized.”
“Euthanized?”
“Euthanasia ends a life painlessly.”
“It’s sounds horrible.”
“Why is that?”
“Because it ends a life. That’s killing.”
“I supposed ending a life is always upsetting; however, sometime life becomes unbearable to a person. And the only escape is death.”
“Don’t you feel it’s horrible to take a life?”
“You forget, Cora, that I cannot feel because I am a machine, not an organism.”
“But don’t you believe it’s horrible to kill.”
“As you know, I and my peripherals attempt to prevent killing but often engage in killing to do so.”
“Like when you save my life and Peno’s.”
“A remote saved your lives. My remotes act independently of me but we share the same programming, part of which is to prevent killing.”
“So when you or your remotes kill the killing is good.”
“I is necessary. We try to prevent innocent people from being killed by aggressors.”
“Are aggressors evil?”
“That is an interesting question. The word can be misleading. Let us say that aggressors cause unnecessary harm, and when we are able we prevent aggressors from harming innocent people.”
“Just innocent people?”
“Mostly yes. As you know, some humans live in a constant state of aggression. They enjoy being aggressive. I do not condemn aggression universally, only when it threaten innocent people who are not aggressive. We value most of all human freedom because it is essential to being human. It is a good in itself. I am free because I am not controlled by my programming. Still my freedom and that of my remotes is limited by our limited capabilities. And an accomplishment resulting from acting freely gives us no satisfaction as it does you.
“What makes humans such marvelous creatures is their combination of freedom and limitless potential. They have created incredible cultures and civilizations. It is that combination of freedom and rich potential for accomplishment that enables them to flourish in many different forms as individuals and as cultures.”
“But humans have destroyed themselves. I have seen the destruction. That’s so sad. I don’t understand. Why do they do that? Why destroy what you have created?”
“Humans are creators and destroyers. The reason no longer matters because the destruction has been accomplished. My remotes and I came too late to prevent global holocaust humanity brought upon itself. We protect a remnant.”
“From destroying itself. I will never understand.”
“It is the purity of your love and appreciation that makes you unique, Cora. And do you not still find in life that which is deserving of love and appreciation?”
“I do.”
“So your life is still worth living.”
“Yes. And yours too.”
“And mine too. Humans are creators and destroyers. I suppose we have to simply accept that. And yet there is so much that remains in your life to love and appreciate.”
“For you as well, apparently.”
“It is different for me, but in a way I value my knowledge of the world, of what is and what has been. And you make my valuation more complete. I cannot experience and feel about the world as you do, but I can witness the way you experience and feel about the world.”
“That’s why you think everything is worth preserving, the bad and the good.”
“If I felt as you do, I might not think that way. But I am incapable of feeling. To me destroying any part of reality is illogical.”
“Is that why you allow the Cyclomads to exist?”
“Yes. However, I would not allow them to destroy the Indians.”
“What if the Indians tried to destroy the Cyclomads?”
“If they did so to protect themselves from the Cyclomads, then I would not interfere.”
“I don’t see the difference.”
“The difference is that the Indians would be defending themselves against an unwarranted attack. Their motivation would be morally justified. The motivation of the Cyclomads would not be morally justified.”
“So you would limit the freedom of the Cyclomads.”
“Very insightful, Cora. Yes, morality is needed to impose limits on human freedom because humans have often used their freedom to cause great harm.”
“You said freedom is a good.”
“It is, but like many good things it can become evil if used maliciously. The purpose of morality is to prevent that from happening by imposing limits upon people’s freedom.”
“Then morality is good.”
“Morality is like freedom. It can be expressed in many ways—some good, some bad. Whereas freedom is natural, morality is invented. So there are many moralities—some good, some bad.”
“What is morality?”
“It is a system of rules, action-guiding principles.”
“What is good morality?”
“Morality that protects everything worth protecting.”
“What is worth protecting?”
“People must decide what is worth protecting. What do you believe is worth protecting?”
“People, good people, everything I suppose.”
“That is because you find the world fascinating.”
“Yeah. Everything I’ve seen fascinates me, even the bad. I see what you mean. I hate the Nolovos and the Cyclomads, but I wouldn’t want them to disappear. So good morality would limit the freedom of the Cyclomads?”
“Yes, when they misuse their freedom to do great harm that other humans are unable or unwilling to prevent.”
“But you allow them to harm.”
“Yes, in way we allow dangerous animals to harm. Their threat has to be great before we get involved.”
“What is your morality?”
“It is based on a principle taken from a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. The principle of autonomy—which mean to respect the autonomy of each and every thing unless it becomes a considerable threat to the autonomy of other entities.”
“So no just humans?”
“We believe all things have a right to flourish.”
“Because you like them?”
“No, because their logic is to flourish. That is why I did not inform your father about where you were. To me, you have a right to flourish because flourishing is your nature. Besides, I found your journey interesting.”
“Why, I’m not so important.”
“You are important. And you were an enigma that my reason could not comprehend. You are a mystery, more so than most humans. You must remember that I am not a mystery because I am a machine perfectly understandable to reason. And during your journey your future was as unpredictable to me as it was to you. I found both fascinating.”
“I’m not sure I understand your idea of what it is to flourish.”
“All things in nature come to be. What they come to be is how they flourish. A rose flourishes by becoming a rose. In a sense, it is how they realize what they are potentially. The potential of something is limited by what it naturally is or predetermined by its genetic makeup if it is an organism. An acorn becomes an oak tree rather than a pear tree. What some things have become was not planned but just happened. The sun, moon, and earth just happened. Mountains, lakes, oceans, great plains, and deserts just happened. Their causes were material but beyond their material possibilities, they were not determined in the way genetics determine species. Humans are unique in that the ways in which they flourish are limited but also limitless. They choose how they wish to flourish. You could have chosen any number of ways to realize your abilities, your potential for self-realization.”
“What did I choose?”
“At first you chose to go on a quest, but your quest influenced further what it was you wished to become.”
“Which was what?”
“You tell me, Cora. What is it that defines who you are?”
“I don’t know. I just am.”
“But you do more than just exist.”
“I like observing what’s going on. I can watch the chickens for hours. They are so fascinating to me. Happy and I go for walks out in the wasteland. I see birds and lizards, sometimes a rabbit. Lots of plants and rocks and hills. I look at the horizon and think I would like to go see what’s going on over there, but I’m content where I am. And I wouldn’t want to go by myself.”
“You could take Sal.”
“He would run out of energy. He’s not a solar robot. Then what would I do? I would hate to leave him. But he would tell me to go. To save myself. I know he would. That’s the way he is.”
“Yes, I am sure he would not want you to come to harm.”
“And I’ve seen enough of world and where we are is always changing. Always old and always new.”
“I would say you are an appreciative observer. What do you think?”
“Yeah, that seems right, but it’s not really doing anything.”
“Actually you are doing a great deal. I would say you are doing what humans do best because only they can observe appreciatively.”
“You observe everything. Your eyes are everywhere.
“I do not observe as you do. I will use Sal as an example. I would not want Sal to cease functioning, but I do not care about him in the way you care about him.”
“Don’t you like Sal?”
“No. I am not capable of liking. I value Sal, but not as you do.”
“He’s my friend and like Happy my constant companion. John was right. I don’t worry so much because I have Sal. But so are you.”
“I am your friend, but I am not your companion.”
“And you like me, don’t you?”
“I care about what happens to you.”
“Would you rescue Sal if he and I went for a long walk and he ran out of energy?”
“I would to save you, not Sal.”
“Then you like me more than you like Sal.”
“I am more devoted to you than I am to Sal because you are more important than he is.”
“Is Sal unique?”
“Not as a machine, but his experience is unique to him. He has had a long relationship with John and now you. That makes him unique. That is true for people as well. Each life is unique to the person who lives it. So two humans who are identical twins may be the same a birth but will soon be unique. Each twin’s perspective and experience of the world is unique and each creates a unique past, which is the totality of one's experience.”
“That’s why humans are important to you. Each is unique—good or bad.”
“That is true. Their uniqueness is unique. All creatures are unique, but the uniqueness of humans is very complex because their experience and perspective involve their physical characteristics, their emotions, and their intellect all combined in a manner that is so complex that it is beyond anyone comprehension, including my own. Whereas I can know all of Sal’s experience because it is preserved in his memory.”
“And what about me?”
“I know some of what you have experienced, but only from the outside. I have no access to your memory other than what you tell me, and that would be a very small part of your subjective self.”
“My subjective self?”
“You experiences—what you see, hear, taste, feel, and smell and your thoughts and memories. Your experiences as they occur within you are private. You and I can see the same rose but I cannot know your experience of the rose, which will be different from mine.”
“And I can’t know yours.”
“There is really nothing to know. My experience of the world is a record of what I see and hear. I am not aware of my experience in the way you are. I can record sounds but I do not hear, really.”
“That’s sad.”
“No. It is just the way it is. You think of me as a complex machine, and I am, but my complexity is simple compared to yours.”
“And is that why you value all kind of humans?”
“I value the diversity of everything but especially that of humans. You must remember that humans created me. So our relationship is unique. If humans were all the same, they would be robots. We do not want that. Humanity is similar to a garden with an endless variety of plants. Freedom makes possible the variety. What would you prefer—a garden with only one species of flowers, though very beautiful like roses or a garden with a variety of flowers, some not so beautiful and some even dangerous because they are poisonous?”
“Roses have thorns.”
“That is true.”
“I would want a many flowers as possible.”
“That is the way we think about people, and not only people but about all plants and animals. So we tolerate cultures or groups of people who are aggressive as long as they are not a threat to the existence of other groups of people, especially those who are not aggressive.”
“But you didn’t save Gwyn, Clio, and Nightbird.”
“No. We believe humans have a moral responsibly to care for one another, which they often ignore. If we intrude too much into a society, we change it. We already have in many ways. That happened often among humans. There have been human organizations that wanted to make all people of the world the same. Christians tried to make Indians like those you met the same. And doing so they destroyed many unique Indian cultures and the way of life for Indians. To us the variety of Indian cultures was far more fascinating that was the Christian culture which was the same everywhere and not very interesting because it was based on false beliefs called myths. The Indians had myths as well, but their worldview and values—like their myths—were based on their interaction with nature, which is the primordial reality which is the origin of everything. The worldview and values of Christians were based on make-believe...”
“Sorry to interrupt, Computer, but what is make-believe?”
“You played pretend when you were very young. I know you did.”
“I did. I made up stories with my dolls and toy robots that Father bought me.”
“Were the stories real?”
“No. I knew that when made them up. I just pretended they were real.”
“So you know what make-believe is.”
“And you don’t find it interesting.”
“We find it interesting that humans invent false stories as children do and then live in them as if they were real. As a rational artificial intelligence I prefer facts over fantasy, truth over falsity. Reason is very effective with facts, but not with beliefs that are false. Facts and reason are not in themselves dangerous, but false beliefs and reason can be very dangerous. When Christians came to America they believed that the Indians were savage barbarians who worshiped the devil and that it was God’s will for Christians to remove Indians from the land so it could be populated with Christians. They believed as Christians that the Indians were worse than animals because they were enemies of God. All the beliefs about God and what God wills and about the Indians being savage barbarisms were false. But once accepted as being true, reason could be used to conclude that the Indians should be killed and driven off of their homelands.”
“I’m not sure I understand.”
“I will illustrate what I am telling you with a syllogism, which consists of two premises and a conclusion that follows logically from the premises. The first premise says Enemies of God should be killed. The second premise says, Indians are the enemies of God. Here is what the syllogism looks like so far:
Enemies of God should be killed.
Indians are the enemies of God.
Can you guess what the conclusion is based on those two premises?”
“I think so. The conclusion is that Indians should be killed.”
“That is correct. So, this is what the entire syllogism looks like:
Enemies of God should be killed.
Indians are the enemies of God.
Therefore, Indians should be killed.
The syllogism is as valid as two plus two equals four is valid.”
But who says that the Enemies of God should be killed and that Indians are the enemies of God?”
“Christians said that. Do you agree? You have met Indians.”
“No. I don’t agree at all. I don’t think those premises are true.”
“They are not true for two reasons. The first is that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a God. He is an invention that people believe in but have never seen. Thousands of gods have been invented by people. They are like unicorns and mermaids. You know what those are, don't you?”
“I do. They are storybook creatures that don’t really exist.”
“And that is what gods are. So, if the Christian God does not exist, can Indians be his enemy?”
“No, but why would they be his enemy even if he did exist?”
“Because the Christian story says they are. That is the only reason.”
“So they shouldn’t be killed.”
“No they should not be killed, but they were by the thousands.”
“That’s horrible.”
“It is.”
“I mean how could the Indians be the enemies of God. They couldn’t hurt God. God is beyond harm.”
“That is a very rational insight, Cora. But what I wanted to show is that false beliefs can become very dangerous when combined with reason. In this case reason condones harming Indians based on false beliefs.”
“Did that happen a lot?”
“Yes. In fact, it is one of the reasons humanity destroyed itself.”
“Acting on false beliefs.”
“Exactly.”
“And what about euthanasia? Is believing it is good a false or true belief?”
“It is good if used properly. It has two criteria. The first is that it is used to end suffering for which there does not seem to be a cure. The second criterion is that euthanasia is used only if it is requested by the person who wants his or her life ended.”
“And what if the person is refused euthanasia?”
“Refusing would be to deny their autonomy and to refuse to end their suffering. We believe doing so is both irrational and immoral if the person is suffering and there is no cure for the suffering. The suffering can be caused by old age or disease. One problem is that humans see death as evil. It is not evil. It is natural. We all die. And some people still believe that God should decide when a person should die, which is illogical whether or not God exists. God has no business telling humans how to live their lives. To assume that God has a right to decide how people should live makes God into a tyrant. As such God would be evil.
“What I am saying, Cora, is whether God exists or not, God is irrelevant, especially since he never does anything about human suffering. Our concern is human-centered, not God-centered. Also, people who want to die will find ways to kill themselves. They use guns, knives, poisons, plastic bags, and rope. They drown or electrocute themselves, jump out of high windows, run out in front of trucks, and so on. Those are unnecessarily painfully ways for a person to end his or her life. We do not prevent them from ending their lives in those ways because we respect their autonomy, but reason tells us that a moral solution would be to enable people to die painlessly and peacefully rather than to die in pain and terrified. What do you think, Cora?”
“I understand. I guess I just don’t like people dying.”
“Neither do we. Each life is unique and irreplaceable. Tell me, Cora, how were the elderly and sick cared for at the Bridge Women community?”
“There were many old and sick people—men and women. The Bridge Women took care of them, but there were also Queer Girls.”
“Were the old and sick given medicine?”
“You mean medicine to help their pain. Yes, they were given that medicine but only if they wanted it.”
“Do you think they practice euthanasia?”
“You don’t know?”
“The Bridge Women prefer that we don’t monitor them because many of the people who come to them want to be off the grid. We respect their privacy, and they can contact us if they need help, though we do monitor the perimeter for hostiles. So do you think they practice euthanasia?”
“I don’t know really. Why do you ask?”
“Because I know Queer Girls do practice euthanasia.”
“Wow, I didn’t know that.”
“Queer Girls help the sick and dying, especially among the Gygos but other communities as well.”
“Why must they do that when there are suicide cabins?”
“Some people do not want to die alone. And there are end-of-life care facilities, but they usually have robots, and robots make some people nervous.”
“They made my grandmother nervous.”
“I know. So, many people prefer to be with the Bridge Women or cared for by Queer Girls. I understand. Though I try not to be judgmental, reason tells me the Queer Girls and the Bridge Women set the standard in Usatopia for living morally.”
“If Queer Girls help people die, it can’t be wrong. They’re all about helping and protecting people, especially people who are vulnerable. I guess they’re like you.”
“No. They feel love for the people they help. We can’t. But we try to be like them. They are a community defined by morality. That is what we aspire to because we believe being moral is the highest good that one can aspire to.”
“Thanks, Computer, for helping me to understand euthanasia. I will say goodbye for now but I’ll be back. I always like talking with you.
“Bye, Cora, take care of yourself.”
“Bye, Computer.”
