Years ago Isaac Asimov created the Three Laws of Robotics: A robot must not harm a human, a robot must obey a human, and a robot must protect its own existence (in descending order of priority). They defined the parameters of robotic action. A robot could only break one of the second two laws if it did so in order to keep one of the first two laws. That controlled the fictional interactions between robots and human society.
Should we not think then, about controlling the very real interactions between governments and our human societies? In most countries we vote to elect a government and allow them to create and enforce legislation on our behalf. This creation and enforcement of legislation is the interaction between governments and people that should be monitored.
Perhaps we can think of some principles concerning the creation and enforcement of legislation then. I would suggest the following (in order of decreasing priority):
Laws can not be enforced which harm the planet;
Laws can not be enforced which harm humanity;
Laws can not be enforced which harm individual humans.
Using the first principle of this rationale then, we would tell governments that they cannot have laws which for example allow resource stripping companies to plunder minerals from sensitive environmental areas, even though humanity might need those minerals for improved living standards. How many of our governments give in before the intense lobbying of industrial giants to the detriment of small local populations.
An example of the effect of the second principle is to say that governments should not enforce laws which give one group of people ascendancy over another. This would have a significant impact in the way dictators are protected by their status as leader of a country. A current example of this is Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe where he is stripping assets from one group of citizens, and bestowing them on another group. As soon as he steps outside his own controlled territory, he should be arrested. Is there any country in the world today with the guts to do that? I think not.
And the third principle would have the effect of not being able to enforce laws concerning a person’s behaviour in the privacy of their own home. If an individual is harming humanity in some way such as committing crime to support a drug-using lifestyle, then the third rule is superseded by the second rule. But if they are using drugs in the privacy of their own home, humanity is not affected, so no law can be enforced against that individual. It would save a lot of money in our law enforcement and incarceration of criminals.
If we were to hold our governments’ performances up against these criteria, how many of them would achieve a pass mark with the laws they are enforcing. It’s time humanity stood up and told governments exactly what we expect of them. They should stop creating legislation as a result of short-term, vote-gathering, knee-jerk reactions, and start creating a real positive legacy for humanity and our planet.
Three Laws of Humanity
By goodtalkingYears ago Isaac Asimov created the Three Laws of Robotics: A robot must not harm a human, a robot must obey a human, and a robot must protect its own existence (in descending order of priority). They defined the parameters of robotic action. A robot could only break one of the second two laws if it did so in order to keep one of the first two laws. That controlled the fictional interactions between robots and human society.
Should we not think then, about controlling the very real interactions between governments and our human societies? In most countries we vote to elect a government and allow them to create and enforce legislation on our behalf. This creation and enforcement of legislation is the interaction between governments and people that should be monitored.
Perhaps we can think of some principles concerning the creation and enforcement of legislation then. I would suggest the following (in order of decreasing priority):
Laws can not be enforced which harm the planet;
Laws can not be enforced which harm humanity;
Laws can not be enforced which harm individual humans.
Using the first principle of this rationale then, we would tell governments that they cannot have laws which for example allow resource stripping companies to plunder minerals from sensitive environmental areas, even though humanity might need those minerals for improved living standards. How many of our governments give in before the intense lobbying of industrial giants to the detriment of small local populations.
An example of the effect of the second principle is to say that governments should not enforce laws which give one group of people ascendancy over another. This would have a significant impact in the way dictators are protected by their status as leader of a country. A current example of this is Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe where he is stripping assets from one group of citizens, and bestowing them on another group. As soon as he steps outside his own controlled territory, he should be arrested. Is there any country in the world today with the guts to do that? I think not.
And the third principle would have the effect of not being able to enforce laws concerning a person’s behaviour in the privacy of their own home. If an individual is harming humanity in some way such as committing crime to support a drug-using lifestyle, then the third rule is superseded by the second rule. But if they are using drugs in the privacy of their own home, humanity is not affected, so no law can be enforced against that individual. It would save a lot of money in our law enforcement and incarceration of criminals.
If we were to hold our governments’ performances up against these criteria, how many of them would achieve a pass mark with the laws they are enforcing. It’s time humanity stood up and told governments exactly what we expect of them. They should stop creating legislation as a result of short-term, vote-gathering, knee-jerk reactions, and start creating a real positive legacy for humanity and our planet.
Tags: bad legislation, dictator, enforcement, environment, government performance, humanity, individual rights, law, Mugabe, privacy, resource stripping
This entry was posted on January 20, 2009 at 5:09 pm and is filed under Political Commentary, Social Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.