Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> Eugene Leitl wrote:
> >I do think that the consensus is that to want to live is not evil, and
> >by exclusion things which terminate an enjoyable existance to be
> >evil. Quite axiomatic, or so I have thought.
>
> If one thing must die for another to be born, then it is not obvious
> which to prefer.
That would very much depend on whether the new thing is seen as being as
good or better than the current thing. It is one thing for the human
race to be replaced by advanced transhumans or SI[s]. It is quite
another to be replaced by grey goo.
I don't know the answer yet but I think part of such conundrums is that
we expect everything to be a survival of the fittest type of game
indefinitely. Perhaps it always perforce will be but I hold out the hope
that that is not the only way things can play out.
Even within the strictly human realm we can't manage to really be happy
for each other's success or especially each other's greater ability in
some area or another without part of our mind worrying that we are
becoming obsolete or at a serious disadvantage. IMHO this seriously
hobbles humanity's ability to grow. Too much energy is spent protecting
territory and fighting against the new, the upstart. Things are too
geared towards competitive anxiety rather than rejoicing over the
richness of shared abilities and resources.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT