In a message dated 3/8/00 3:43:35 PM Central Standard Time, email@example.com
> 2 questions for discussion: If pain and suffering did not exist, might
> complacency keep us from creating?
Darned good question. And one reason I find the possibility of a technology
of PERFECT satisfaction of desire somewhat frightening. Of course, we have
that now (heroin probably comes close, as far as our animal substrates are
concerned) and only a relatively small percentage of people become addicts.
I think, in this case, it's very much true to say "it's all relative".
Compared to most of humanity, though most of history and prehistory, I live a
life of almost inconceivable comfort and luxury. Yet I find plenty - both
positive and negative - to motivate me.
> Secondly, HOW MUCH pain and
> suffering would be the minimum that an intelligent species would need,
> to be motivated to create?
Bearing in mind my response to your first question, I suppose I'd say that it
doesn't take much "disutility" to motivate an intelligent being. Just a
little can be an incentive to action.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:51 MDT