Altered Carbon

[maquiscat]

Does anyone else feel the need for brain bleach or to bathe with a pressure washer after reading this?

Why? As who constantly calls for others to not use emotional arguments in other threads, what non-emotional argument do you have for or against this?

 

[BirdinHand]

Got a better location for it?

It’s not really a thought experiment I think *should* be discussed.

The entire concept comes across to me as a way to justify having sex with minors. A means to crack the door to giving that some sort of justification based on “maturity”.

And in a world where we do have child brides, child sex trafficking and pedophiles - I don’t find any reason to even touch on giving those actions ANY sort of justification.

 

[maquiscat]

It’s not really a thought experiment I think *should* be discussed.

The entire concept comes across to me as a way to justify having sex with minors. A means to crack the door to giving that some sort of justification based on “maturity”.

And in a world where we do have child brides, child sex trafficking and pedophiles - I don’t find any reason to even touch on giving those actions ANY sort of justification.

Define a minor, especially in this context.

 

[BirdinHand]

Define a minor, especially in this context.

The law already does.

 

[maquiscat]

The law already does.

The law can define a minor as only up to 12 and has done so in the past. But I'm not asking for an age. Define a minor especially in the context of the situation given.

 

[BirdinHand]

The law can define a minor as only up to 12 and has done so in the past. But I'm not asking for an age. Define a minor especially in the context of the situation given.

To me? Maturity is about accumulated life experience.

I stopped talking to a very dear and close friend that I had known since we were probably close to 12.

He got into a relationship with an 18 year old girl. When he was 42-43.

For me it was gross. An 18 year old and a 40-something are in two entirely different places and spaces in life. There isn’t equal footing and there’s a “power” gap.

(If the relationship had formed 20 years in the future and was a 38 year old with a 60 year old…it wouldn’t have bothered me)

I’ve seen 18 year olds that are very immature. And I’ve seen 14 year olds that are incredibly mature.

Legally, we have settled on 18 being the age of maturity. I’m ok with that number. And then one-off situations can be addressed as they already are.

 

[maquiscat]

To me? Maturity is about accumulated life experience.

I stopped talking to a very dear and close friend that I had known since we were probably close to 12.

He got into a relationship with an 18 year old girl. When he was 42-43.

For me it was gross. An 18 year old and a 40-something are in two entirely different places and spaces in life. There isn’t equal footing and there’s a “power” gap.

(If the relationship had formed 20 years in the future and was a 38 year old with a 60 year old…it wouldn’t have bothered me)

I’ve seen 18 year olds that are very immature. And I’ve seen 14 year olds that are incredibly mature.

Legally, we have settled on 18 being the age of maturity. I’m ok with that number. And then one-off situations can be addressed as they already are.

So then what is the issue if, say a 30 year old is in the child body, interacting with another 30 year old in their original body?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

This is something I did on another forum, and I thought I'd try it here. This is intended to be a thought experiment. As such, certain premises, which are currently impossible, will be assumed. Please remain within the given premises.

The title is also the title of a show on Netflix. In it, science has developed such that human consciousness can be downloaded into a device that is then implanted into the top of the spine, base of the brain. What this results in is the ability to live beyond the body death, and even to switch bodies. While children are born normally, and eventually receive the device (the show never mentions at what age it happens, but by preschool years), bodies without consciousnesses are also created.

Here is the question. Since the person itself would be mature, Should it be allowed for someone with, say 30+ years of lifetime experience, to inhabit a child body (assume one created, or no longer housing an actual child) and to have sex with an adult body (assume also inhabited by an actual adult)? And as reference, in the show there was a scene where a child who's body had died in an accident was placed into an adult body because that was all that was available. So if that could happen, then an adult could end up in a child body.

I would say, no, it should not be allowed, because the reason we do not allow sex between an adult and a child has nothing to do with the mental state of the child, who may well be more or less "mature" than average. I.e., it could be that a 13 year old is perfectly well equipped mentally to have sex and to have sex with an adult, etc., and with underage teenagers, it would depend on the context. For example, Romeo and Juliet were like 13 years old in that play, and it was deemed normal, as it was a time when the idea of "teenagers" wasn't the same - people regularly got married in teen years back then, etc.

The reason we have a rule now is based on the maturity and mindset of the adult, not the child. So, an adult should not be having sex with a child.

It's kind of like why it should, in my view, be illegal for companies to sell robot prepubescent children as sex toys. It feeds into pedophilia. An argument might be made that it would be better to give pedophiles an outlet so they don't prey on children, but I think the evidence is that they don't stop at robots, and feeding into that fetish would expand the practice of sex with children.

The premise of the question seems to be about giving an adult in a child's body the choice to have sex with adults in adult bodies on the premise that the "self" is somehow separate and distinct from our bodies. However, my first point is that the law doesn't really have to be focused on affording the widest number of sexual opportunities to people. Policy judgments are made which are better for overall society, and it would seem that limiting the power of adults to have sex with prepubescent children is a good policy, even if there might be a few "adult minds" in child bodies. Secondly, even if we accept the premise that science can place human consciousness into the brain of prepubescent child, that doesn't mean the brain in that child-body is itself an adult brain. A brain is part of the body. A brain functions in a way based on its physical structure. It's not just a downloaded consciousness. As such, I would submit that within your premise is the reality that a child's brain is still a child's brain, even if an adult "consciousness" is downloaded into it (your premise did not refer to a brain transplant, where the actual brain would be the fully developed brain of an adult).

 

[BirdinHand]

So then what is the issue if, say a 30 year old is in the child body, interacting with another 30 year old in their original body?

I appreciate the construct you’ve established - but I can’t play a “what if” with a scenario and a technology that doesn’t exist.

In reality, we have 16 and 18 year olds that are emotionally and maturity wise - much younger than their biological years.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So then what is the issue if, say a 30 year old is in the child body, interacting with another 30 year old in their original body?

Maybe the policy is to keep the 30 year old in their original body from engaging in pedophilic behavior, so we would not allow him to buy a robot 10 year old body sex toy, and we also would not allow him to act out with a 10 year old biological body (for the same reason).

Also, the brain is part of the body, and if the "consciousness" of the 30 year old was downloaded into a 10 year old's brain, the brain of the 10 year old is still just a 10 year old's brain. When brains develop, they physically develop and their structures are different. So, it stands to reason that a consciousness downloaded into a 10 year old brain would not operate the same as if it was downloaded into a 25 or 30 year old brain. So, a 10 year old brain with a 30 year old consciousness may well still be materially different from a 30 year old consciousness in a 30 year old brain.

 

[BirdinHand]

Maybe the policy is to keep the 30 year old in their original body from engaging in pedophilic behavior, so we would not allow him to buy a robot 10 year old body sex toy, and we also would not allow him to act out with a 10 year old biological body (for the same reason).

Also, the brain is part of the body, and if the "consciousness" of the 30 year old was downloaded into a 10 year old's brain, the brain of the 10 year old is still just a 10 year old's brain. When brains develop, they physically develop and their structures are different. So, it stands to reason that a consciousness downloaded into a 10 year old brain would not operate the same as if it was downloaded into a 25 or 30 year old brain. So, a 10 year old brain with a 30 year old consciousness may well still be materially different from a 30 year old consciousness in a 30 year old brain.

Yep.

The fundamental brain structure changes with biological age. And literal synapses are built. I can’t see how they’d be magically changed with the “implant” of a consciousness.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I appreciate the construct you’ve established - but I can’t play a “what if” with a scenario and a technology that doesn’t exist.

Well, his premise also seems to be that a 30 year old consciousness is downloaded into a 10 year old's brain -- that's different than a premise that a 10 year old brain is replaced by a 30 year old brain. That's an important difference, because brains are physical things, and they develop over time. So a 10 year old brain is NOT the same as a 30 year old brain even if a 30 year old "consciousness" is "downloaded" into that brain. The premise did not at all state that brain structure, neurons, connections, etc., are modified to turn it into a 30 year old brain.

In reality, we have 16 and 18 year olds that are emotionally and maturity wise - much younger than their biological years.

Yeah - well, the rule about cut-off ages is never based on the mental state or capacity of an individual person. These rules specifically ignore the mental and maturity level of the underage person because it's impossible or impracticable to make individual determinations in every case, so we make a general determination that most people under a certain age can't drive or drink, right - it's not because underage people always and in every case can't handle it -- I could drive and drink reasonably when I was 15. My parents allowed me to drive off-road when I was 15 and I could drink beer and wine at age 15, and I did, and I suffered no ill effects. But, the law wasn't about me in particular.

So, let's use those as an example - if a 10 year old gets a 30 year old consciousness downloaded into their brain, do they now get to buy cigarettes, whisky and drive cars on the open road? I would say, no, because, not only are their bodies not fully developed, but their brains too, which is part of the body, is not fully developed, and their operation - their behaviors - how such activities effect them - is not just governed by their "consciousness." They have behaviors and emotions that are in part governed by their brain structure, which will continue to develop and change for 15 years.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Yep.

The fundamental brain structure changes with biological age. And literal synapses are built. I can’t see how they’d be magically changed with the “implant” of a consciousness.

Well, the premise offered in the OP did not ask us to assume that the structure of the brain was changed to be that of a 30 year old, such that it really was a 30 year old brain in the head of a 10 year old. So, we aren't required to assume that.

However, even if we were to assume that it was, like, a brain transplant - and a 30 year old man's brain was put into a 10 year old's body fully operational - I STILL would submit that the reason we don't have 30 year olds ****ing 10 year olds' bodies is not exclusively based on whether the 10 year old really wants it, likes it or "can handle" it. It has a lot to do with not wanting the pedophilic behavior to be encouraged or fostered. Allowing 30 year old pedophiles to **** 10 year olds, whether robot sex toys or brain transplant bodies, is prohibited because pedophiles need their behaviors checked, so they don't **** other 10 year olds too.

Like - why would it be illegal for AI pedophile porn to be created to show pedophiles -- so pedophiles can whack off to depictions of 10 year olds getting ****ed? Why not allow that? I think the idea is because we don't want the pedophiles further desensitized and their behavior further fostered. We as a society do not want the behavior normalized. It's one step closer and it will do something to a guy already disposed to wanting to **** kids, if they can watch hardcore porn of kids being ****ed. Take regular porn - one can see myriad videos online of grown women vigorously and enthusiastically perform oral sex on men. As most men are rather pro blowjob in general, does seeing women doing it on film make them less desirous of receiving blowjobs in real life? Of course not! It makes a man more likely to think that getting a blowjob is an expected part of sex. So, a pedophilic person, who sees that imagery, or has sex with child sex toy robots, etc., is going to have a mindset that what they are seeing and doing is normal and typical. I would put the brain transplant situation in the same boat as that. Saying "oh, you can **** kids, as long as the kids have had a brain transplant" doesn't seem to be a great public policy, because the pedophiles themselves are going to just be encouraged in their pedophilic behavior such that other kids who haven't received brain transplants will be at risk. And, you'll get defenses raised that the pedophile thought the kid had a brain transplant, etc.

And, I can see where this OP might go with the next hypothetical -- what if a 30 year old "identifies as" a 13 year old - does that mean the 30 year old should be allowed to have sex with "biological" 13 year old? Or, what if a 10 year old "identifies as" a 20 year old? That kind of thing. Should we presume they "know who they are"? But, again, the law isn't really based on the individual minds of the children involved. It's a cut-off to provide broad, statistical protection to masses of people so we do not have to make difficult or impossible determinations as to the mental acuity of underage kids.

 

[southwest88]

...
Here is the question. Since the person itself would be mature, Should it be allowed for someone with, say 30+ years of lifetime experience, to inhabit a child body (assume one created, or no longer housing an actual child) and to have sex with an adult body (assume also inhabited by an actual adult)? And as reference, in the show there was a scene where a child who's body had died in an accident was placed into an adult body because that was all that was available. So if that could happen, then an adult could end up in a child body.

I'll have to track down the source novel, the Netflix series, & the anime. (Thanks for the note, I wasn't aware of the author nor show.) As to the question, see the life & grotesque end of St. Alia of the Knife in the Dune series of novels. (It was also covered in the 2nd Dune series - out of SyFy, I believe the miniseries was.)

The question is too fraught. The ethics of obsession with a child's body - even if the mind/soul/consciousness are not those of a child - is repugnant. The closest in world literature that I recall offhand is Nabokov's Lolita.

 

[maquiscat]

I do plan to respond to many of the posts once back home at my laptop. But I had to say that it's nice to see a lot more traction here, than the other forum. And to see some well thought out opposition instead of only the emotional knee jerking I expected.

 

[Gozaburo]

I'm going to add this thread to my long list of the horrifying logical conclusions of transhumanism.

People assume that we might augment human biology to be able to explore the cosmos. Instead we have "serious" discussions about what the implications of biotechnology are for the morality of pedophilia.

 

[WillyPete]

I hadn't realized there were novels. Sounds like the two seasons were much better than the novels were.

Overall, the books were disappointing past the premise. Extremely violent, and jarring sex scenes that served no purpose.

I'm a bit of a literary purist, so I judge based on how closely it cleaves to the original, and I generally feel that video is a very limited medium compared to reading.

As another example, A Song of Ice and Fire (the source of Game of Thrones) hasn't actually been completed, so I stopped watching when it caught up with the books.

I want the story George "Dirty Santa Claus" R.R. Martin is telling, not some HBO staff writer.

 

[Phys251]

I'm going to add this thread to my long list of the horrifying logical conclusions of transhumanism.

People assume that we might augment human biology to be able to explore the cosmos. Instead we have "serious" discussions about what the implications of biotechnology are for the morality of pedophilia.

What the hell are you blabbing about THIS time?

 

[Gozaburo]

What the hell are you blabbing about THIS time?

The thread raises the question that if we are somehow able to transfer the consciousness of an adult into a child's body using technology, does it make pedophilia moral?

I'm cracking a joke that our ancestors dreamed we would use sophisticated technology to explore the new frontier - outer space. Instead we're musing about whether or not pedophilia can be legitimized by using technology. It's just absurd lol.

 

[Phys251]

The thread raises the question that if we are somehow able to transfer the consciousness of an adult into a child's body using technology, does it make pedophilia moral?

I'm cracking a joke that our ancestors dreamed we would use sophisticated technology to explore the new frontier - outer space. Instead we're musing about whether or not pedophilia can be legitimized by using technology. It's just absurd lol.

Technology has always been used for both good and bad. That will never change.

 

[GIJane]

Wasn't this the premise of the final season of Dollhouse?

 

[maquiscat]

Wasn't this the premise of the final season of Dollhouse?

Not sure. Sadly that is far down my watch list, and keeps getting lower as other things come up, like the new Airbender live action and Good Omens

 

[GIJane]

Not sure. Sadly that is far down my watch list, and keeps getting lower as other things come up, like the new Airbender live action and Good Omens

I have the DVD set. I need to binge watch it AGAIN this summer.