From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 03:58:27 MDT
On May 1 2001, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (in response to Jim Fehlinger) wrote:
> There's another difference between this Earth and an Earth in which we
> have been replaced by six billion arbitrary humans - the latter Earth has
> undergone a major extinction event which violated the rights of six
> billion individuals. Even if the future outcome is more or less the same
> (which it almost certainly would be, from a high-level perspective), the
> total history of the latter Universe is less desirable.
This seems to rest on some very dubious claims. First "extinction events"
(of the natural variant) are not "moral actors". They have no control over
whether the occur or not. They just are "what's so". They either contribute
to the complexity of the universe (extropianism) or they don't. Current
evidence would seem to suggest they represent a "stress" that drives
towards extropianism (increasing complexity).
I would question (both Jim and Eliezer) as to whether unique individuals
can so readily be replaced. Some inflection points are driven by history
while others are driven entirely by the individuals. Can one present
a concrete case that Microsoft or Oracle would not be the market forces
they now are without Bill Gates or Larry Ellison? Would the computer
industry as we know it exist without those companies and the people
behind them?
I would also question blanket statements regarding the "sameness" of the
"future outcome" based on the replacement of individuals. I for one
would argue that the replacement of either myself or Eliezer (to name
a few of many that represent dynamic positions in the developmental
equation) with others less strongly biased would certainly shift the
long term path. If the six bilion swap is for six billion equivalents
then it isn't really a swap at all.
Finally, I would suggest that the entire concept of "rights" based
self-preservation must engage with the issue of whether or not
that preservation is extropic or entropic. To argue for the
preservation of entities that are an inherently poor allocation
of matter or energy resources, simply because they have "rights"
is an inherently evolution-limiting concept. One can go there and
"be moral" (within a limited framework) but one must acknowledge
that this is an self-imposed constraint on the evolution of the
universe.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:01 MST