A signature cannot settle the Lich/Leech/Lichen/Likes bargain
Ethical analysis and proposed charter. The founder’s metaphor places wealthy Liches beside poorer Leeches and Lichen, the nonhuman and planetary biological web imagined to sustain the consciousness cloud. It intentionally scrutinizes an asymmetrical do ut des (“I give so that you might give”) economy in which the powerful draw value from other people’s lives and ask cui bono (“to whose benefit?”) only after the contract is signed. Making an arrangement explicit helps reveal its terms; it does not settle whether the arrangement is just. A responsible venture needs protections that sti
Ethical analysis and proposed charter. This page expands the “A signature cannot settle the Lich/Leech/Lichen/Likes bargain” chapter in the ethics collection.
The founder’s metaphor places wealthy Liches beside poorer Leeches and Lichen, the nonhuman and planetary biological web imagined to sustain the consciousness cloud. It intentionally scrutinizes an asymmetrical do ut des (“I give so that you might give”) economy in which the powerful draw value from other people’s lives and ask cui bono (“to whose benefit?”) only after the contract is signed. Making an arrangement explicit helps reveal its terms; it does not settle whether the arrangement is just. A responsible venture needs protections that still work when participants have very unequal bargaining power.
The Belmont Report centers respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Its account of consent requires voluntariness and attention to coercion and undue influence. HHS guidance also asks reviewers to consider whether recruitment and payment can compromise voluntary choice. Poverty does not automatically erase a person’s agency, but financial vulnerability must not become the business model’s source of consent.
A proposed contributor charter would make participation optional, separate it from access to ordinary services, explain foreseeable risks in plain language, and provide independent advice and a route to complain. Compensation would recognize actual contributions without being described as the purchase price of a consciousness. Contributors should have a meaningful voice in how policies are written, not merely a box to tick after decisions have been made.
Withdrawal must be explained honestly. A participant may be able to stop future collection or certain future uses, while already published findings, distributed data, or established biological materials may not be fully recoverable. The precise limits depend on the approved study and agreements (pacta sunt servanda). The company must define those limits before enrollment instead of promising that every consequence of donation can always be reversed.
The lifeforce-consumption premise remains within the mythology. No cited study establishes a transferable lifeforce, the ingestion of subjective experience, or a technology that gives one person eternity by consuming another. An operational consent policy therefore concerns real samples, data, participation, and research risks. It cannot validate a transaction whose underlying biological mechanism has not been demonstrated.
Open this exact section in the Necromancer dossier. The original chapter status is “Ethical analysis and proposed charter.”
Take this topic further
Turn “A signature cannot settle the Lich/Leech/Lichen/Likes bargain” into a learning path
The Learning Studio will use this page’s overview and key ideas to shape a guided lesson, practice questions, and a small project around what you want to understand.
Related GiveGigs pages and features
Explore connected GiveGigs pages and tools for context and next steps.