From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 02:30:28 MDT
--> Samantha Atkins
> Reason wrote:
> >
> > ---> Samantha Atkins
> >
> >>Reason wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>[Aside: you know, I really don't think anyone arguing back and
> >>>
> >>forth in the
> >>
> >>>past few days on this and similar topics really disagree on
> >>>
> >>ethics/morals.
> >>
> >>>It's all factual/societal-opinion-as-fact items that are being
> >>>
> >>debated. Very
> >>
> >>>similar to the current abortion debate. e.g. what is human, what is the
> >>>value of a potential human, etc, etc.].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Some of us here apparently very much disagree on ethics and
> >>morals or at least what should be a matter of social ethics - of
> >>law. Some of us very much disagree on language equating infants
> >>to animals and of "low replacement cost" and claiming women are
> >>less valuable than men and more subject to some assumed huge
> >>negative memetic influence. I don't consider that decent
> >>coffee-table discussion and I certainly don't consider remotely
> >>material I feel like slogging through on a list that is supposed
> >>to be about (I thought) creating a bighly viable and wide-open
> >>future.
> >>
> >>Please do not pretend that some of the opinions expressed are
> >>civilized or that they are just ideas and arguing points with
> >>no practical ties to the real world. If the latter were true
> >>then the dicussion would be even more pointless and twisted.
> >>
> >
> > [Civilized = something that Samantha agrees with or feels
> comfortable with],
> > apparently.
> >
> If you believe that, that it is all relative or subjective, then
> it is no wonder we are having a difficult time communicating.
Well yes, of course it's relative and subjective; it's defined by humans and
by consensus in our society. One person's civilization is another person's
abomination. I asked you in a previous post to produce an argument
demonstrating that there is a single preferential civilized frame of
reference, as it were.
> > Actually, it would seem that the major difference between you
> and most of
> > the other posters is that you advocate or tend towards magical thinking
> > while they advocate or tend towards the scientific method. This
> may be an
> > ethical difference, or simply a difference in assumed metafacts, I'm not
> > sure.
>
> Magical thinking is a derogatory term for my position and using
Um, it is? I've certainly never used it as such. Is there a preferred term
for it? I'm pretty sure there's one for the Christian theological arm of
magical thinking, but I'm not sure about the rest.
> it is unfair and inaccurate communication. The scientific
> method is not sufficient for all things. The notion that it is
> is not itself even scenitifically verifiable or testable. I
> attempt to point out that we must project the values we want to
> see in the future we attempt to create and not just fall into
> sceintific mumbling while much of crucial importance to our real
> lives and future is ignored as "un-scientific", "irrational", or
> "magical".
I think that memes of that sort are essential, but from a perspective of
extreme memetic diversity = good for the future of intelligent life, arrived
at by scientific thinking. Since we can't (yet) in advance accurately
predict which memes lead intelligence to better survive all eventualities,
any and all memes are welcome in the pool. Even ones we as individuals may
feel have to defend ourselves against.
> > With regards to your first paragraph there, equating infants to animals
> > using some set of criteria is a factual discussion, or a
> conclusion arrived
> > at by a society by consensus. Either you subscribe to this
> fact/opinion and
> > its justifications or you don't. No ethics involved at all
> until you get to
> > deciding what you're going to do based on those agreed facts.
> More or less
> > everyone here agrees that it's bad to just jump up and hurt a human, but
> > it's ok to destroy something that needs a lot of work to get to be human
> > (skin cell, stem cell, etc). After that, it's just a matter of
> definitions
> > and drawing lines down the middle.
> >
>
> Equating infants (and indeed all humans) to animals using some
> set of criteria is not the problem. Assuming that that equation
> means it is quite alright to kill infants (at least if one
> "owns" them) is quite something else again! The fact (an
> infant is an animal) does not let to the conclusion (it is
> alright to kill them if you wish and have ownership rights).
> The idea that ownership rights apply or apply to this degree is
> another conclusion not inevitable from the facts.
Well, yes, that's what I was saying. All those other things are derived by
societal consensus. But it's pretty arbitrary, based on historical record,
as to which consensus is arrived at.
> I draw my line well before the point of saying that killing
> infants is ok and trying to claim that they are not even human
> or claims they are relatively valueless. I feel nothing but
> utter contempt for a view that women are of less value than men.
> No future I remotely want to be a part of would "draw the line"
> on the other side.
Which is all opinion, which is kind of my point.
> > Whether or not you find it pleasant to think about, many similar things
> > (value of people, value of infants, value of races) have been
> settled on in
> > a consensus manner in radically different ways in different times and
> > societies. Many "civilized" and complex societies have declared whole
> > segments of what is currently considered humanity to be objects
> of little value.
> >
>
> We consider setting one race as of more value as the worse kind
> of bigotry. We consider setting some people as more valuable
> generally (rather than in some particular context or in relation
> to certain capabilities) as very questionable. The question is
> not whether different societies have decided certain questions
> in different ways. The burning question is how we will decide
> and whether we will decide in terms of the kind of world we wish
> to build and inhabit or will use our much vaunted brains to
> effectively dissect our own hearts and thoroughly miss the point.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we don't
look back in an attempt to understand, we're not going to do all that well
when things get really complex.
> > This whole thing originally came about as a result of querying
> where to draw
> > the line between human and non-human, and assigning a value to potential
> > humans. This is an eminently valid discussion. If human
> societies can't deal
>
> No problem with that in some aspects. There is a problem in
> other aspects where you believe things below the line can/should
> be treated in any arbitrary manner you might see fit.
Which is an ethical/moral question to be decided on by societal consensus.
And the answer could be any old thing.
> > with this now (vis abortion debate, racial tensions, societal
> values placed
> > on various people of types), what makes you think a transhuman
> society --
>
> Racial tensions have zip to do with any real important
> differences between the value of different races. Seeing people
> as types instead of as persons is naturally fraught with danger.
Well yes and no. Map is the territory. Perceived value is pretty much the
same as value.
> > with an infinitely greater set of potential humans and types of
> intelligent
> > entity -- is going to do better without some work? Burying your
> head in the
>
> When entities are much more advanced than ourselves or even our
> uploaded selves, would it be ok if they decided that we did not
> have any meaningful rights, not even the right to exist? Why or
> why not? If we do not think proactively rather than reactively
> about these questions and project what we wish to live in, then
> we cannot expect anything but the arbitrary cogitation of some
> other sentient who either doesn't have or also ignores its own
> "heart" and the projection of what kind of present and future it
> is creating.
One of my earlier points: whether it is ok or not within any given society
is a function of what the members of that society agree upon, no matter how
horrid other people may find it. As pointed out earlier, I believe in
absolute relativism, you don't.
> > sand and refusing to talk about the values societies have
> placed, currently
> > place and could conceivably place on human and potentially
> human life is not
> > constructive. Follow that route and you end up with a) smartcats as
>
> I was not in the least burying my head in the sand. Quite far
> from it! I was arguing for why this talk is much beside the
> point and extremely unhelpful when it veils de-valuing of women
> and infants, and for what I believe is missing in some of this
> talk.
Hmm. Well I'm not in the devaluation boat (or any sort of valuation boat). I
was trying to separately out the more interesting factual choices (where
society draws the line) as opposed to the less interesting ethical choices
(less interesting to me because most people can't discuss these things
rationally, and the final answer seems like a roll of the dice).
> > disregarded property, b) slave AIs that are destroyed when no
> longer needed,
> > c) humans created for specific tasks and broken down for organs
> when done.
> > If you see c) as being much more disturbing that a) or b) then I say you
> > have some hard thinking to do.
> >
> I see all of them as things that we should strive to avoid
> except that I do not believe our current notions of property
> should apply in all realms or that they are problem-free.
So what's the alternative? I think that human history to date has pretty
adequately demonstrated that absolute property rights and minimal social
contract allows humans better lives and encourages them to take better care
of their surroundings. It works with the instincts of the ape-mind, not
against it.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:22 MST