Not at all. If we didn't let people keep medicines secret and make money from them, who would make medicine? Almost no one. If they couldn't make money from medicine, they'd have to work on something else, and there would be no new medicines. So hiding medicine formulae makes both sides happy: the inventors because they get paid, and the rest of us because we get the medicine.
Do you think that people make medicines because of money? That's sick, what do you think of people? How can you even live among people imaging them that way in your mind? I ensure you, people make medicines because they want to help the others. Anything else is an insult.
It's not something everyone can do, and I don't think it's something we should force people to do. If you don't allow people to keep discoveries secret and/or patent them, you are basically forcing them to give away their work for nothing. And you don't like forcing people to do things ... right?
If they don't want to save a life, so be it, they can stay out of world wide web, as simple as that. I promise I won't look at their pity scripts, they can eat them, I hope they'll love the taste.
I'm sure there are plenty other political arrangements that would solve this issue.
I'm not at all sure. Communism was supposed to solve it, and it turned out to be an absolute horror.
People are smart, they'll think of something. I put my bets on democratic socialism, but I'd like to be even more surprised. I'll wait and see.
I, too, think that we all do bad things and should forgive others. But willingness to forgive and abstain from pointless vengeance, is not at all the same thing as refusing to stop someone who is in the act of doing evil. If you don't act to stop a killer from killing, then functionally you care more about the killer than his victims. When the choice is forced upon us, I think we should care about victims more and killers less. (I know, you want to care about both of them at once. But sometimes that is simply impossible.) If you forcefully stop other people from doing wrong things, but also accept being forcefully stopped by others when you are in the act of doing wrong (and you would want someone to stop you, wouldn't you?), then you're not a hypocrite.
I think this is about being insane. Insane people deserve protection from their sick decisions, using force if needed (you are right, that is what I'd want for myself). But if they, after a thorough explanation, with a calm head really want to kill anyway, what to do then? Should we stop killing a plant? Should we stop killing an animal? Should we stop killing a human? And should we stop killing the planet? Just draw a distinction line and you are an a**, claiming one life is more important than another.
As I said, it is hard to keep the calm head on some issues. That is what makes us living beings. I'm not happy about this, but I'd do a mistake and draw a line at humans, maybe even at non-criminals. But I propose less renegading and more understanding than I see around myself. And as far as I'm concerned, "lower" life forms should also have some basic rights. If not a right to survive, then at least a right to be free. Otherwise, saying "thanks" on beloved Xmas doesn't really make sense. And saying "I'm sorry" on Xmass would be more convenient, but I guess that's too progressive these days.
Now, what rights would have an AGI machine? If it's below a plant then it has no power at all. If it is above the planet, I think it might be too much power. I'm afraid it's our choice to decide whom the machine has right to kill, and I hate the guts of this problem.
