From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Apr 30 2002 - 18:51:46 MDT
Robert Bradbury wrote
> What about the "pain" of failing to evolve, failing to transcend
> the hazard function of the galaxy or failing reach ones ultimate
> potential?
Not everything that is lamentable or unacceptable need be thought
of in terms of "pain". Yet the costs that you refer to here are
indeed so great that the more creative, perceptive, intelligent,
and imaginative someone is, the greater the perceived costs. In
other words, you and I probably underestimate those costs too!
More about pain in a sec.
> I think the hairs that are split with respect to treating chimps
> or dolphins much better than cattle or pigs are *pretty* small.
Agreed. Provided that it's not expensive, however, I want us to
adopt policies that avoid inflicting pain on cattle and pigs.
But if someone proves that the "costs" of such sentimentality
(in the terms that you were describing) are high, well, then that's
the tradeoff I'll have to come to a decision about on a case by
case basis. "Freedom" --- apparently a concept that is as much
misunderstood and under appreciated on the Extropy list as it is
for the general public---provides an excellent answer: I'll mind
my business, and you mind yours, and if yours involves the
mistreatment of cats, dogs, chimps, pigs, or cattle, well,
it's none of my affair nor anyone else's. Societal evolution
proves that adherence to freedom is the best solution found so far.
> Bottom line -- "nature" doesn't care even a teeny, tiny, little,
> miniscule Bekenstein-bound sized bit about whether or not pain
> is inflicted in the process of evolution. In fact "nature"
> developed pain as a feedback process to facilitate evolution.
> (Its the supreme motivating force to get individuals to alter what
> they are doing when that isn't working to avoid being preyed upon.)
Yes, quite right. Except that pain is mostly stupid for highly
evolved creatures. Today an intelligent person does not need
constant pain to be reminded not to move a broken leg. Either
he knows better, or wears a cast to help remember.
> Create a higher order pain function associated with the deaths
> that may be caused because the knowledge to prevent those deaths
> was unavailable because of the funds that had to be devoted to
> providing mice or rate "old-age" homes. Or a higher order pain
> function associated with the fact that we didn't evolve to a
> higher level quite fast enough to be able to prevent a world
> level sterilization event.
Pain, mindless pain, is the *wrong* solution. We must instead
unflinchingly strengthen memes such as yours above, namely,
> What about the [costs] of failing to evolve, failing to transcend
> the hazard function of the galaxy or failing reach ones ultimate
> potential?
Now when you write
> The current "pain" discussions, seem to be to be highly
> anthropocentric.
it reminds me that I long ago gave up trying to have a completely
unified value system. I've had to settle for two consistent
(or as consistent as I can make them) systems: one is a sort of
universal utilitarianism (perhaps similar to what you're embracing),
and the other is what's good for Lee Corbin and what's in line with
what he prefers. I simply strongly disapprove of the torture of
birds or mammals unless there's a very good reason.
> Would you argue that those people behaving in ill-informed
> or self-destructive patterns deserve "extra-human" levels of
> consideration? Are you really arguing that I (or everyone)
> should be responsible for the quality of *their* lives?
It's destructive in the long run to cater to those engaged
in the kinds of behavior you're describing, if I'm reading
you right. Charity, for example, almost always has
untoward consequences, and should be indulged in
only very special circumstances.
But if I encounter people stranded on a raft at sea, I'll
help them if it's not too costly to me. Also, I'll criticize
others who don't, but stop short of endorsing the use of
force to compel their assistance. In the same way, provided
that it's not too expensive, I want an SI to save everyone from
death or mental retardation (like the kind I'm suffering now).
You may ask why. Well, I'm not really into "justificationism",
and have seen it debunked too many times in evolutionary
epistemology (and Deutsch does a great job in The Fabric
of Reality). So I won't justify my values here. But I
can explain them. My built-in sympathies for people and
other animals motivate helping them when I can't see what
harm it does in the long run. (True, that may be because
I'm too stupid to perceive the harm.)
> There is a utilitarian perspective here -- how many mouse
> lives must I sacrifice to save a human life? If thei
> preservation of mouse lives becomes paramount, then
> it seems likely that you will sacrifice the rate of progress
> of humanity. That *does* have consequences.
Totally correct. Yet in my own value systems, there does
exist a large integer N such that I prefer the torture and
death of a human being to the torture and death of N mice.
> Going back to the original question:
>
> "Why would it be so impossible simply to treat everyone with respect?"
>
> Answer:
>
> Because if I "respect" individuals whose perspectives would retard
> the development of humanity such that my own survival or the survival
> of humanity is at stake, then such respect is utterly pointless.
Why is respect expensive?
> It is essentially respecting positions which promote the dismantlement
> of complex life forms so as to return them to dust in the universe.
> *NOT* a very effective extropic position (IMO).
Huh? *Positions* per se don't enjoy my respect the way people
do---or maybe we're talking about different things?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:44 MST