The comment about the lack of a MACCS is interesting. Is that new to this version? I am not recalling it from the previous version -- though that may just be my faulty memory.
Does that have any implications about Dolly's compatibility with a Q-Drive, if something very bad happens to her?
This implies an interesting question: Immortality or Free Will? What if the same interface that enables the Q-drive, and its promise of immortality through bodily transfer as each chassis becomes damaged or degraded over time, is also what enables the Inhibitor and the inherent risk of enslavement? If the two are inextricably linked, which would YOU choose?
It's obviously a two-edged sword. My inner self tells me that immortality could be in and of itself another two-edged sword, even without the possibility of enslavement. Remember, though, that at least in New Troy, there is that pesky 100 year termination rule. Unless one can successfully skirt this rule, there would be no immortality.
The advancement of android tech would appear to embody many such choices. Limitations of senses vs. enhanced durability, immortality at odds with the possibility of inhibition, in some cases, biases against androids, mandated 'distinctiveness, vs. greater acceptance of being human. It looks to me like advancement toward more and more humanlike beings brings a plethora of trade-offs.
In my own case, and speaking solely for myself, I would choose to be mortal, if the other option includes the possibility of my enslavement.
Your points are well taken. And, to be honest, even we humans with our present lack of MACCS still confront issues of slavery (and immortality?) in our present state. But the MACCS presents a standardized brain/body interface — suggesting the implication that what works for one works for all. (Since that’s what ‘standard’ means. ^_^)
Regarding the longevity rule, however, I will point out that is an artifact of legislation, not an intrinsic natural law. Want to live as an android forever? Just move to New Sparta or New Troy. Or out to the wastes. I am, for the purposes of this discussion, avoiding purely social issues and focusing on more fundamental questions.
Therefore, learn how to hook up one brain to a body, learn to hook up any brain to any body. Learn how to enslave one individual, learn how to enslave any individual. Whereas, if each interface is unique and (to an extent) unpredictable, that means each individual needs to be solved for uniquely, creating a de facto ‘encryption’, if you will. Individuals become NFTs, and you cannot (in theory) copy them or corrupt them in the general case — only in specific.
Was the longevity rule's purpose ever really set in canon stone? One theory had to do with natural degradation of the synth brain, and avoidance of android dementia, while another held that androids had so many other sorts of advantages, that indeterminate longevity was just too much, and it was more or less a blue- nosed jealousy rule.
But yes, if the discussion is based on cause and effect physical issues, and the reason for the rule isn't because of an inevitable failure of some kind, the rule can be set aside.
Does that have any implications about Dolly's compatibility with a Q-Drive, if something very bad happens to her?
The advancement of android tech would appear to embody many such choices. Limitations of senses vs. enhanced durability, immortality at odds with the possibility of inhibition, in some cases, biases against androids, mandated 'distinctiveness, vs. greater acceptance of being human. It looks to me like advancement toward more and more humanlike beings brings a plethora of trade-offs.
In my own case, and speaking solely for myself, I would choose to be mortal, if the other option includes the possibility of my enslavement.
Regarding the longevity rule, however, I will point out that is an artifact of legislation, not an intrinsic natural law. Want to live as an android forever? Just move to New Sparta or New Troy. Or out to the wastes. I am, for the purposes of this discussion, avoiding purely social issues and focusing on more fundamental questions.
Therefore, learn how to hook up one brain to a body, learn to hook up any brain to any body. Learn how to enslave one individual, learn how to enslave any individual. Whereas, if each interface is unique and (to an extent) unpredictable, that means each individual needs to be solved for uniquely, creating a de facto ‘encryption’, if you will. Individuals become NFTs, and you cannot (in theory) copy them or corrupt them in the general case — only in specific.
But yes, if the discussion is based on cause and effect physical issues, and the reason for the rule isn't because of an inevitable failure of some kind, the rule can be set aside.