From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 01:49:17 MDT
On Sunday 20 July 2003 20:30, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Mitch writes
>
> Lee Corbin said:
>
> <<. I propose to do away with all stupid
> creatures, and, in fact, probably most matter
> that is not itself intelligent and capable of
> getting along quite nicely without pain.>>
>
> > So all bacteria, mammals, reptiles and birds will be
> > exterminated, uploaded, uplifted?
>
> Yes, much in the way that when you built your house
> ---or hired mercenaries to do it for you---all the
> ants and bacteria living where the concrete foundation
> is got snuffed.
>
You take much upon yourself from your current rather limited and puny
understanding.
> All matter should be *at least* as feeling and thoughtful
> as your own best 10 cc's of brain tissue. And with
> miniaturization, I'm sure that even our brains at present
> are largely wasteful.
>
Arbitrary.
> > On the other hand, I could see Robert's original
> > contention that he considered back in 2001, when
> > dealing with Al Qeida and militant Islam. I could
> > see reasons against doing a nuclear strike; but
> > based on reason, I can also see where such an action
> > might become inevitable! Therefore, my view is that
> > mere intelligence is not the complete answer.
>
> I'm not following you. However, perhaps you mean:
> > The answer might be, 'Intelligent enough to develop
> > workable ethics.'
>
> Well, what's the matter with *our* ethics, that is
> human ethics? IMO there are very few really evil
> people. I have never met anyone who I think would
> not make a good God. (Yes, some people would be
> better than others, but no one I have ever met would
> dish out disaster and hardship the way old Jehovah
> does.)
>
The vast majority of humans are not "evil" by the standards of the vast
majority of humans. However, this does not mean that their ethics is ok and
certainly does not mean that it will work perfectly well as we get greater
abilities for good or harm. Most people are not particularly compassionate
and believe that acheiving their interests can be done at the expense of
others and this is perfectly ok as long as one can get away with it. I have
seen on this very list talk about how the first uploads or AIs shoud/would
preclude others from becoming as powerful. In short, the old
reptilian/mammal/primate power dominance extended straight into godhood. This
assumptions have been made on many, many levels on this very list. Too few
point out that these sort of "reasonable ethics" played at higher levels of
power could result in wars, suppression and oppression at a horrific scale
not yet fully imagined.
I find the notion that the average Joe or Jill elevate to God powers would do
just fine to be one of the most deeply troublesome statements I have ever
encountered here. With great power goes great responsibility. With great
power goes great need for wisdom.
> > But simple intellectual talent does not necessarily
> > bring a more peaceable world. Or have I missed your
> > point, completely?
>
> Given that there exist states of matter so advanced
> that a few cubic centimeters of it could emulate our
> entire civilization sans the really unpleasant stuff,
> why not convert the whole solar system to that?
>
You mean besides the likelihood that the entire solar system is being run
within something like that? :-)
> It would be a crime in my book to leave any matter
> whatsoever out of that equation---and that certainly
> includes mindless trees and insects.
>
So, presumably you include all humans who do not choose to be uploaded in the
category of "wasted" matter that should be converted anyway? If uploading
of humans turns out to be infeasible will you happily die?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 01:55:32 MDT