Re: TERRORISM: Is genocide the logical solution?

From: Mark Walker (
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 15:39:12 MDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <>

> Mark Walker wrote:
> >
> > Robert has taken a lot of grief for this post including being charged
> > the worst crime: engaging in "pro-entropy" (Anders) activities. With
> > reluctance I feel compelled to defend the logic of what Robert is saying
> > because I think he raises an important question, namely: what are we
> > to sacrifice now in terms of lives to advance the effects of the
> > singularity?
> You can be willing to sacrifice your OWN life. You don't get to decide
> whether to sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE'S life.
> There are known exceptions to this rule. I talked about one of them when
> I said that I would, in theory, back a ground war in Afghanistan and Iraq
> to remove their governments from power.
A deontologist about sacrificing others would say that it is morally
obligatory never to sacrifice someone else's life, a consequentialists
weighs the possible good that might result from sacrificing others. On this
issue you are consequentialist it seems. Deontologists would disagree that
there are exceptions, and thus that they are well known.

(In an
> entangled world it is possible for moral principles to directly conflict,
> and so we cannot be morally comfortable this side of the Singularity, but
> it's important to remember that all such conflicts are still bugs in the
> Universe, and must be minimized rather than embraced.
It is hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with you here. We might add another
seeming truism that neither can the moral bugs in the universe be evaded.
There is obviously no truly ethical solution to our current crises, only a
choice among sad alternatives. But of course true morality will remain a
mere ideal until humans participate in superintelligence, or
superintelligence participates in the human.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:50 MDT