Robert Bradbury wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Ethically, there is nothing wrong with making a simulation
>> containing emulations of conscious beings, and then running
>> it at whatever speed you want. Or shutting it down. The
>> only moral prohibition is, simply put, "Don't ever be cruel".
> I think I've set the boundaries on this. They cannot ever
> "realize" that they may be getting an ever decreasing slice
> of the computronium "pie" as their ancestors or offspring
> create...
Why not? As I've implied, existing in a simulation is
better than not existing at all.
> You may be able to arrange the hierarchy of realities such
> that they never *do* realize this but then you have either
> handicapped them or lied to them.
Okay, so I've handicapped them. But, they're my creations.
Surely you don't expect me to share my wealth with them?
I don't even share my wealth with other U.S. citizens,
and they are on an equal footing with me.
> If you take the position that "No, old conscious entities that
> only get 1 clock tick per trillion years may *never* be erased",
> then you clearly set a limit on your own forward self-evolution".
The solution to these quandaries is the same very
simple solution that societies have evolved to the
consternation of social planners, namely, private
property.
I can do what I want with my computronium, and you
can do what you want with yours, unless others decide
with weight of numbers to use force against us. I
think that we've learned from history that this is
a bad idea, and that prosperity and progress arise
from respect for private property.
Your job is to infect me with memes, e.g., "respect
your simulations and allot them what resources you
can", and my job is to infect you with memes, e.g.,
"respect the private property of others and demand
that they respect yours". In my opinion, this is
better than trying to lay down rules.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT