I haven't seen people get this fired up since The Pitt.

Millions of species have gone extinct without humanity even lifting a finger to make it happen. Hell, without humanity even existing. That's the nature of life. Life is born, it finds a niche, and if it's lucky, it thrives. If it doesn't, it dies, and the world moves on, not sparing a second thought.

We've been blessed to come into existence during a relative lull in the cycle of destruction that our planet exists in. We haven't had huge death rocks from the sky and our super volcanoes are all lying dormant for the time being. True, we've had an impact on our environment, but even things like the polar ice caps are just remnants of an ancient calamity our planet went through, not the eternal status quo. Nature is not balanced. And if it comes that we've screwed things up so much that 99% of life can no longer sustain itself? Then it's not really any different than any of the other mass extinctions our planet has endured. The life that survives will take over, and evolution will continue on.

Well, I'm a pessimist. That's just the way people think and that's how I think. I don't like seeing humans suffer but a machine "suffering" can be fixed with some formatting with no loss to the machine itself. Try to do the same to a person and it's not the same issue.

I never would have assumed you were a pessimist...

There is some bad philosofy in here. But this wasnt.


You however is full of it.


Machines have rights. What a joke.

A soulless machine is just a tool no matter how much functions it has. Its so basic but you have been fooled by todays sect thinking ways.

It would have been people like you, who cannot seperate a machine from a human, that would have called native americans non human.

Did you know darwinism does exactly this? That your whole faith in evolution is based on pure racism and fantasy.

I agree with both of you. In a real life scenario I'd be talking about the gray areas of this a lot more, and I do think if you can understand an abstract concept like being owned by someone and feel that it's wrong, that does show a certain level of cognoscente ability that demands a certain level of respect (i.e.:rights), just like being able to understand the difference between pleasure and pain demands a certain level of respect (the freedom from having pain needlessly inflicted, for example).

I just think that this trope is a bit played out in media lately, so I'd rather it not be the plot we get in Fallout 4. Especially if it's going to create another anti-intellectualism "Smart people are bad!" storyline like the ones that seem to have been popping up more often recently.

I don't want this to be a Railroad v Institute thing. I want this to be an Institute v Institute thing, with qualified scientists on both sides discussing the subject from various philosophical and intellectual points. I don't want "It's bad because I can liken it to something else we think is bad!"

I agree.

I like discussing it in real life and its certainly pertinent to my field, but I don't think I want to see it in Fallout 4 unless its done exceptionally well. Fallout 3 didn't give me much hope that it'd be anything other than a Blade-Runner rip off.

Because Americans once believed that Native Americans weren't humans that doesn't mean that a toaster is now alive.

A human wouldn't necessarily be the apex predator in that situation, but we are conscious beings. How can you empathize with a robot if you have no way of knowing that a robot is experiencing anything at all. It's just number crunching. We all know that organics have a similar experience of thinking and awareness. A non-organic has something entirely different. So to empathize with something that doesn't actually feel is ridiculous.

Seriously? Bringing religion into this?

Define "soul", since according to you this shapeless, formless object with no evidence of it's existence is what separates us from machines.

I would say that the answer to the question of forced servitude... is that it's wrong if the android doesn't want to.

If he had a broad view/definition of humanity, why would he restrict Native Americans from that category whilst allowing machines?

Uh... what?

It's capable of fooling you into believing it wants freedom. At the end of the day it's doing that for your own sake. It's entertaining you. It's one thing to let it go about it's business when you aren't in an apocalyptic wasteland. It's another thing entirely when the lives of all the people in the settlement are dependent on those androids doing their job.

Lol, and on your second play through you will understand how silly it was to side with androids and let the actual human settlements fail.

I voted no.

And I believe this thread is showing us who each of us are going to support if the game includes the institute and the androids.

Yes, nations founded on slavery found it difficult to adjust when they realized how cruel it was. But they eventually did.

If the human inhabitants pulled their own weight, they'd survive. If they didn't, they'd fall.

Not for me.

I'm full on Institute. Hate the Railroad with a passion.

Anyone can ride a Railroad.

You have to smart to get into MIT.

I don't think it was ever an epiphany... I think it was those that understood why it was wrong, vs those that didn't care that it was wrong.

*It's interesting to note that there were ex-slaves that fought in the civil war ~to keep their own [owned] plantations, and keep their own slaves to work them.

Lots of Anti-American, communist sentiment around here. If this is what Beth is going to give us, I will miss Liberty Prime.

Rights for freakin' toasters that are programmed to "feel" sad. These must be the same people that want rights for grass and trees.

The difference is we do it knowing full well the ramifications. We deliberately destroy species and habitats. I'd argue an ethical high ground lies in the preservation of all life (as the topic questions ethics). Fact remains that once we've destroyed everything how will we perpetuate then? What will we breath when there's no trees to give us oxygen because we cut them down to serve our other needs?

And of-course there's a chance that they'll be the Brotherhood of Steel's main opposition - ergo I'm with them by default.

Most oxygen comes from oceanic algae.

*Fixed.

Also, http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml.

Xenophopic, highly technologically advanced society isolated from the rest of the world vs. the Knights of Yore?

Ding. Ding. Ding. Round 2 baby.

I vote yes, so hate me.

There's always going to be morally grey areas. It's unfortunate that particular android got mauled, but the blame is on the raiders, not the bear. I'm sure given the opportunity to heed the bears warnings the android would've left alone.

If the android gave the bear encroaching on his territory a warning shot, or in some way warned the bear off it probably would've left him alone.

Thing is there are things that can be done to aid those with mental illness. Same is true of anyone thinking they shoot what they like, when they like. You educate and rehabilitate, not just ignore the problem.

As for a computer thinking, it depends on the computer. Your brain is biological computer. It's working on chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Replicate that system and it'll do the same thing.

We're not talking desktop Intel processors here, we're talking theoretical AI with unknown technology. Scientific reason shows that it is theoretically possible to replicate the human brain to perform in the same manner. If these androids are that advanced why shouldn't they be allowed freedom?

If it's sentient, self-aware and can reason to demand its freedom, then it's unethical and should be granted freedom. Like how Puppet Master was in Ghost in the Shell.