From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 08:09:58 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>
>> That is not an issue of race. That is an issue of comforting a
>> sentient being which has experienced a past trauma and fears the
>> trauma may be encountered again. This trauma may have involved an
>> illusory concept called "race" held by other sentients, but I don't
>> need to buy into that illusion to feel compassion, to offer
>> assistance, or even to offer reassurance.
>
> No disagreement there at all. But I thought we are talking about an
> inclusions statement exactly to offer that bit of compassion and
> reassurance. So perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you in favor of such a
> statement, with suitable avoidance of making unreal preoccupations
> stronger?
Have you been following this thread from the beginning? Max proposed a
statement of inclusion. I agreed and proposed what I thought was a
strengthened statement of inclusion. I objected specifically and only to
a later proposal by someone else of saying that ExI "valued diversity" and
especially the idea of valuing racial diversity.
>> Fine. Let's do so. I still strongly object to a general
>> transhumanist organization making the statement that we *value racial
>> diversity* because this statement is incompatible with my beliefs
>> about the moral and rational value of colorblindness.
>
> So maybe a statement that we value diversity in all forms and are
> unified by a common core of values and goals would be sufficient.
Um... maybe I'm still not being clear. I don't value diversity in all
forms. Where the question is "2 + 2", I value the nondiverse answer "4".
Where the question is "race", I value the anti-answer "mu". This is why
I don't like statements of "valuing diversity".
>> *What* more general point? Someone wanted to state we valued racial
>> diversity. I objected. You objected to the objection. Are you
>> withdrawing your objection^2 and raising a different point to debate?
>> If so, please state it so that I can decide explicitly whether I agree
>> with it.
>
> We have been speaking of a list of differences that are sometimes points
> of exclusion, not just race. It is that that I was referring to. Do
> you believe that any differences at all between people should be both
> acknowledged as differences and explicitly accepted as of value?
No. I do not acknowledge race as a difference and I do not currently
accept different answers to "2 + 2" as being of value.
> Do you
> believe that diversity is ever a value
Yes, with respect to systems design, Fun Theory, and increasing the total
nonduplicated complexity of the universe.
> or that some differences are not
> adequately accepted and the people possessing them appreciated by taking
> a stance that only their sameness matters and their differences should
> be, where possible, ignored?
I'm sorry, your syntax was too diverse there. WHAT?
> What I am attempting to get at here is
> the degree where people feel fully seen and present and accepted in an
> organization vs. only being accepted in those ways and too the extent
> they are the same as everyone else.
This is a problem that needs to be solved, but one of the solutions -
stating that you "value racial diversity" - is a shortsighted hack, a
different side of the same coin, shooting your own foot off. Please
understand that I can oppose a bad solution to this problem without
denying the problem itself. (E.g: "What? You oppose welfare? Are you
saying poverty doesn't exist?" "What? You oppose bombing Afghanistan?
Are you saying terrorism is a good thing?")
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:00 MST