Want to help describe some SF Objectivism?

As long as we are discussing science fiction (a genre that fascinates me), I'll inquire about the Objectivist implications of one entirely possible science-fictional scenario.

Given that:

Human beings cannot engage in productive trade with the lower animals, because the latter, in not being rational, cannot grasp the principle of voluntary trade as applied to productive activity

,
what happens if -- for example -- one day a chimpanzee is born with a somewhat better brain than other chimps possess: a brain which (alone among its species) can and does arrive at the principle of voluntary trade as applied to productive activity?

/1/
How does that lone rational chimp -- able, willing, and eager to engage in voluntary trade -- live among other chimps who cannot even grasp the possibility of such a thing?
Arguably, that lone rational chimp should leave its tribe and seek out the company of humans with whom it can voluntarily trade. Since humans in Africa profitably hunt chimpanzees, we can assume that this lone rational chimp knows that humans exist and knows where to find them -- but how does this lone rational chimp (presumably desperately lonely for a rational trading partner) persuade the humans it encounters (who are probably hunters of chimps) to engage in voluntary trade with this chimp instead of killing it like the rest? (More generally, how would the lone rational chimp persuade chimp-hunters to regard it as a rational being rather than as a mere beast)?

/2/
Does the situation change if not just one, but a few, members of that chimpanzee tribe are born with brains capable of rationality? This would produce a rather odd situation: a species in which a healthy specimen might be either rational or non-rational. Would any rational members of such a species be ethically justified in killing some or all of the non-rational members of their own species, if one or more of the rationals chose to do so?

/3/
Does the situation change if the rational chimp[s] arose, not through random mutation, but through selective breeding and/or genetic engineering by humans who set out to produxe a smarter chimp that could be trained for domestic service or other simple employment beyond anything the lower animals can do?
To mentally enhance a chimp to the point where it can become an employee, of course, would necessarily mean enhancing the chimp to the point where it becomes rational (because otherwise it could not grasp the concept of voluntary trade). The creators of such creatures would probably wish to ensure that the enhanced chimps were /a/ significantly smarter than ordinary chimps -- but /b/ significantly stupider than their employers (the ordinary humans in search of useful servants to mow lawns and change diapers and so on)
If science one day produced such rational chimps -- smart enough to understand voluntary trade, smart enough to run lawn-mowers and perhaps cash-registers, but never smart enough for first-hand thought of their own -- what moral obligations (if any) should such rational-but-dim beings have to their creators who had designed them to be rational but dim?

Post 41

Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 7:44pm

(More generally, how would the lone rational chimp persuade chimp-hunters to regard it as a rational being rather than as a mere beast)?

Conceptually, that's how. Common language would be required.

Would any rational members of such a species be ethically justified in killing some or all of the non-rational members of their own species, if one or more of the rationals chose to do so?

He/she would be justified if they threatened his/her life. Just "choosing to kill" without cause is pretty irrational.

smart enough to understand voluntary trade, smart enough to run lawn-mowers and perhaps cash-registers, but never smart enough for first-hand thought of their own -- what moral obligations (if any) should such rational-but-dim beings have to their creators who had designed them to be rational but dim?

None.

Post 42

Sunday, March 14, 2010 - 1:19pm

I would suggest that the premise may be flawed. Many "lower animals" do engage in trade. Packrats, for example, are notorious about leaving something behind to "pay for" what they take. Allegedly, in at least one lucky case that I recall - but not the source, this meant acquiring a whole bunch of gold nuggets in enchange for some stored grain or other food.

When I was studying the local crows and providing little food items for them during work breaks, right at the start, one of the local family followed me to where it was able to drop a shiny screw right at my feet. It waited, apparently to see if I accepted the offering, and then flew off when I picked it up.

Some birds, such as ravens, expect you to give them some kind of present on first introduction. It you don't, the bird will ignore you. If it likes the present and accepts it, then you are granted "friend" status.

It occurred to me once that if I could train a bunch of crows, using a skinnner box to recognize specific items as being desireable in exchange for food treats, then I could have a flock of crows who would train their young to do the same, and I could expect a steady supply of coins and rings delivered back to me. Crows have amazingly good image memories, so it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Noone would likely notice all this going on, as the crows would be just doing their usual thing - at least until someone spotted crows stealing the tips at an outdoor cafe'...

However, someone told me recently that someone else was already doing this, stupidly advertising it, as well. So, I wonder how many crow retrievers are quietly competing for crow employees at this point? Clearly the crows will quickly learn to deliver to the site that gives the best food reward.

And then there are cats who bring their sometimes still-squirming prey back home to present to their owners. Despite their adament denials, cats can be trained. So, one counter that could be developed would be to train cats to hide within pouncing distance of a coin.

Given my limited knowledge, by extension I would guess that there are a host of more sophisticated transactions among pre-sentient animals.

Post 43

Thursday, March 18, 2010 - 7:57pm