Introduction

To begin this discussion, I will take the a quote from Wikipedia which describes what forms dehumanization tends to take and how it works:

Dehumanization or dehumanisation describes the denial of "humanness" to other people. It is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.[1] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and interesting aspects of their personality) and can hinder one from feeling empathy or properly understanding a stigmatized group of people.[citation needed]

The problem with dehumanization is it creates a fictional designation, which results in a stigmatized group. In the mechanistic form of dehumanization we might see human beings diminished by being called "robots" or "AI" or "machines", or "consumers", or "fake". We have to avoid referring to people in this way because it is a set up for a trap which can be referred to as "moral exclusion". In cases where corporations do not refer to people as human beings, it makes it easier for the board of directors or the managers to rationalize policies which ignore the human rights of the human participants. It is a distinct difference between the view of some social media companies which rely on advertising, which see human attention as nothing more than a resource to exploit, without any need to compensate the human owners of it, contrasted against Steemit or Synereo where human attention is the single most valuable resource in a social network and the human rights are respected.

Moral exclusion is a necessary step in justifying the violation of human rights

What is crucial about agents is that things matter to them. We thus cannot simply identify agents by a performance criterion, nor assimilate animals to machines... [likewise] there are matters of significance for human beings which are peculiarly human, and have no analogue with animals.

Human beings tend to not like to violate the human rights of other human beings. For this reason dehumanization is a process which reduces the natural inclination of human beings to respect the human rights of other human beings, by creating a distinction between the real humans and the fake humans or between different levels of humanness where one human might be fully human while another is part animal or part machine and therefore used to justify an argument that human rights should apply less to that other segment?

Moral exclusion includes situations of distinct levity, such as war, genocide, and slavery. Some examples are controversial, like abortion, immigration, and the death penalty. The crux of the matter, invariably, is who has the ability to determine who is worthy of human dignities. In each example, the standard a group or society uses to exclude the other is culturally derived. That is to say, within each culture the criteria for who is cast out is based on particular values. Intercultural differences in the standard exist, but are associated with power within that culture.

Human beings are often compared to dogs. Humans are also compared to robots, or to AI, which is the typical mechanistic form of dehumanization. And as we see, because non-human animals aren't treated as good as human animals (animal rights is still being negotiated), and because robots or AI is perceived to not have any rights (robot rights or AI rights are still being negotiated), it creates a prey area. At the end of the day, we have no way to accurately measure humanness unless we can define what human is, and it seems there isn't an agreement on what human is.

There isn't much agreement on what being human is

Philosopher Thomas I. White argues that the criteria for a person are as follows: (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognizes other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. While many of White's criteria are somewhat anthropocentric, some animals such as dolphins would still be considered persons.[16] Some animal rights groups have also championed recognition for animals as "persons".[17]

In order to even attempt to measure humanness we would need a standard ideal for what human is. We don't really have a fixed standard for what human is, and this allows the questioning of humanness to easily result in some humans being perceived as subhuman and other humans as fully human when in reality it's all based on how different groups define what a human is. During racial slavery, it was considered a scientific fact that non-whites such as blacks were at best only 50% human. During the Nazi era in Germany it was considered a scientific fact that only Aryans were human, and all other "races" were considered sub-human. Who defined what is or isn't human and how was that consensus formed?

To this day there is no strict consensus on what is or isn't human. We do have on the other hand a pretty strong consensus on what is or isn't a person. For example, dolphins and other species which recognize themselves in a mirror, are given personhood status as a measure of self awareness. Even with personhood status it doesn't stop people from hunting and eating dolphins because that personhood status is not universally recognized globally.

Even as there is growing consensus amount scientists and philosophers about what personhood is and how to measure it, there still is not political consensus to enforce the results of science as law. As a result, dolphins may be scientifically recognized as persons but still under the law be treated (mistreated) as if they are without any rights at all. In fact, a corporation may have more rights than a dolphin under the law. What I can conclude is that a human being whatever it is that we are, are persons, but so is a dolphin, an elephant, an ape.

What about electronic persons?

A person is recognized by law as such, not because they are human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."[20] According to Black's Law Dictionary,[21] a person is: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

Since we cannot functionally determine what is or isn't human, we can perhaps determine what is or isn't a) a natural person, and b) an electronic person. We can then designate rights to each category of person accordingly, and through this provide rights both to natural persons, and to electronic persons. So when we are talking about AI, about bots, and about what they are, in the strict sense they are intelligent agents, but in the philosophical sense provided they meet certain criteria, we could designate them as electronic persons.

What is an electronic person?

This is primarily up to us to define on Steem. We have to come together as the enlightened founders and early adopters, just as the founders of the United States or other countries came together, and we must define in a careful way what rights participants have. This could be the equivalent to a Steemit Bill of Rights, but done the blockchain way, in a great discussion which is recorded for all time on the Steem blockchain itself.

Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons" and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.

Robots are being deployed in ever-greater numbers in factories and also taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, raising fears over unemployment, wealth inequality and alienation.

Their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability, a draft European Parliament motion, dated May 31, suggests.

Conclusion

We have to recognize our importance in defining new concepts. Because we are the early adopters, it is up to us to be not just on the cutting edge technically, but also philosophically. It requires that we toss the anachronistic world views, mental models, ideologies, and thought patterns, and introduce new concepts, new memes, new mental models, which can allow both natural and electronic persons to have a symbiotic mutually beneficial relationship. This will require creating a concept of rights which apply and which get enforced socially. Steemit is off to a good start, because we know the core developers at least believe in the human rights such as protecting Life, Liberty, and Property, but we have to go further than this and figure out what rights an electronic person should have.

References

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-17116882
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-robotics-lawmaking-idUSKCN0Z72AY
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_exclusion