Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

Whose words are these?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

Whose words are these?

Mine, apart from the Dawkins quote.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

Whose words are these?

Mine, apart from the Dawkins quote.

Thanks.

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

Heavy man.

doesn’t appear to be dawkins’ best work, not sure the moral dimension of thought is entirely natural for him

transition said:

doesn’t appear to be dawkins’ best work, not sure the moral dimension of thought is entirely natural for him

Dawkins is only in the quote about the nature of organic life. I don’t know if he’s ever considered the moral duty of electronic beings.

His views on the nature of life seem accurate enough. To quote Wiki:

For evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, nature is in no way benevolent. He argues that what is at stake in biological processes is nothing more than the survival of DNA sequences of genes. Dawkins also asserts that as long as the DNA is transmitted, it does not matter how much suffering such transmission entails and that genes do not care about the amount of suffering they cause because nothing affects them emotionally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism#Animals

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

doesn’t appear to be dawkins’ best work, not sure the moral dimension of thought is entirely natural for him

Dawkins is only in the quote about the nature of organic life. I don’t know if he’s ever considered the moral duty of electronic beings.

His views on the nature of life seem accurate enough. To quote Wiki:

For evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, nature is in no way benevolent. He argues that what is at stake in biological processes is nothing more than the survival of DNA sequences of genes. Dawkins also asserts that as long as the DNA is transmitted, it does not matter how much suffering such transmission entails and that genes do not care about the amount of suffering they cause because nothing affects them emotionally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism#Animals

like I said previous, he’s not a natural

Bubblecar said:

truly conscious, intelligent

LOL

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

truly conscious, intelligent

LOL

Just using those terms in their conventional sense, meaning beings capable of similar self-experience and self-contemplation as ourselves (only better).

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

truly conscious, intelligent

LOL

Just using those terms in their conventional sense, meaning beings capable of similar self-experience and self-contemplation as ourselves (only better).

Perhaps they could be elected to government

If this sounds a little extreme, bear in mind that there are philosophers today (known as universal antinatalists) who argue that humans have a duty not just to stop procreating ourselves, but to sterilise all other animals:

>Karim Akerma defines antinatalism, that includes animals, as universal antinatalism and he assumes such a position himself:

By sterilising animals, we can free them from being slaves to their instincts and from bringing more and more captive animals into the cycle of being born, contracting parasites, ageing, falling ill and dying; eating and being eaten.

David Benatar emphasizes that his argumentation applies to all sentient beings and mentions that humans play a role in deciding how many animals there will be: humans breed other species of animals and are able to sterilize other species of animals. He says it would be better if all species of sentient beings became extinct. In particular, he is explicit in judging the breeding of animals as morally bad:

Because my arguments apply not only to humans but also to other sentient animals, my arguments are also zoophilic (in the non-sexual sense of that term). Bringing a sentient life into existence is a harm to the being whose life it is. My arguments suggest that it is wrong to inflict this harm.

Magnus Vinding argues that the lives of wild animals in their natural environment are generally very bad. He draws attention to phenomena such as dying before adulthood, starvation, disease, parasitism, infanticide, predation and being eaten alive.

He cites research on what animal life looks like in the wild. One of eight male lion cubs survives into adulthood. Others die as a result of starvation, disease and often fall victims to the teeth and claws of other lions. Attaining adulthood is much rarer for fish. Only one in a hundred male chinook salmon survives into adulthood.

Vinding is of the opinion that if human lives and the survival of human children looked like this, current human values would disallow procreation; however, this is not possible when it comes to animals, who are guided by instinct. He takes the view that even if one does not agree that procreation is always morally bad, one should recognize procreation in wildlife as morally bad and something that ought to be prevented (at least in theory, not necessarily in practice). He maintains that non-intervention cannot be defended if we reject speciesism and that we should reject the unjustifiable dogma stating that what is happening in nature is what should be happening in nature.

We cannot allow ourselves to spuriously rationalize away the suffering that takes place in nature, and to forget the victims of the horrors of nature merely because that reality does not fit into our convenient moral theories, theories that ultimately just serve to make us feel consistent and good about ourselves in the face of an incomprehensibly bad reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Procreation_of_non-human_animals

silly

Bubblecar said:

If this sounds a little extreme, bear in mind that there are philosophers today (known as universal antinatalists) who argue that humans have a duty not just to stop procreating ourselves, but to sterilise all other animals:

>Karim Akerma defines antinatalism, that includes animals, as universal antinatalism and he assumes such a position himself:

By sterilising animals, we can free them from being slaves to their instincts and from bringing more and more captive animals into the cycle of being born, contracting parasites, ageing, falling ill and dying; eating and being eaten.

David Benatar emphasizes that his argumentation applies to all sentient beings and mentions that humans play a role in deciding how many animals there will be: humans breed other species of animals and are able to sterilize other species of animals. He says it would be better if all species of sentient beings became extinct. In particular, he is explicit in judging the breeding of animals as morally bad:

Because my arguments apply not only to humans but also to other sentient animals, my arguments are also zoophilic (in the non-sexual sense of that term). Bringing a sentient life into existence is a harm to the being whose life it is. My arguments suggest that it is wrong to inflict this harm.

Magnus Vinding argues that the lives of wild animals in their natural environment are generally very bad. He draws attention to phenomena such as dying before adulthood, starvation, disease, parasitism, infanticide, predation and being eaten alive.

He cites research on what animal life looks like in the wild. One of eight male lion cubs survives into adulthood. Others die as a result of starvation, disease and often fall victims to the teeth and claws of other lions. Attaining adulthood is much rarer for fish. Only one in a hundred male chinook salmon survives into adulthood.

Vinding is of the opinion that if human lives and the survival of human children looked like this, current human values would disallow procreation; however, this is not possible when it comes to animals, who are guided by instinct. He takes the view that even if one does not agree that procreation is always morally bad, one should recognize procreation in wildlife as morally bad and something that ought to be prevented (at least in theory, not necessarily in practice). He maintains that non-intervention cannot be defended if we reject speciesism and that we should reject the unjustifiable dogma stating that what is happening in nature is what should be happening in nature.

We cannot allow ourselves to spuriously rationalize away the suffering that takes place in nature, and to forget the victims of the horrors of nature merely because that reality does not fit into our convenient moral theories, theories that ultimately just serve to make us feel consistent and good about ourselves in the face of an incomprehensibly bad reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Procreation_of_non-human_animals

In other words, all life is bad and should not exist.

I don’t think “silly” is an adequate criticism :)

The arguments of these philosophers, although at first glance seemingly odd, make sense when you consider:

a) However weird and wonderful the world of animal life appears to us, these “beings” are all just stages of various pointless chemical processes.

b) In the case of sentient animals, these chemical processes and their interaction with the environment involve vast amounts of real suffering, as graphically portrayed on every David Attenborough documentary.

Obviously the extent to which humans should feel a duty to end this suffering is highly debatable.

Many will probably console their consciences by taking the long view, like Bertrand Russell, speaking of humans and life on Earth in general: they are “a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.”

In the sci-fi novel that I keep toying with writing, I’d considered this and decided that such a machine would have to have the core hard-wired so as to follow the equivalent of Asimov’s three laws of robotics. Being an intelligent machine though, it would have to learn as its knowledge and experience grew and such experiences would be grown on the surface of the core in specific areas, in an increasingly growing shell overall, from the liquid crystal bath it ran in. Any additional layers would have to pass the core criteria first though, thus making it unable to alter its base directives in any way.
That’s it simplistically, there’d have to be a bunch more systems to keep it all stable.

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think “silly” is an adequate criticism :)

The arguments of these philosophers, although at first glance seemingly odd, make sense when you consider:

a) However weird and wonderful the world of animal life appears to us, these “beings” are all just stages of various pointless chemical processes.

b) In the case of sentient animals, these chemical processes and their interaction with the environment involve vast amounts of real suffering, as graphically portrayed on every David Attenborough documentary.

Obviously the extent to which humans should feel a duty to end this suffering is highly debatable.

Many will probably console their consciences by taking the long view, like Bertrand Russell, speaking of humans and life on Earth in general: they are “a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.”

Nature doing its thing perhaps not, the prey and predator scenario for example

Suffering due to animals in our care or caused by us (for whatever reason) I say we should intervene.
I mean the suffering could be ended by death, for example hitting a roo with a car and its obviously in pain and nothing can be done to help it.

Spiny Norman said:

In the sci-fi novel that I keep toying with writing, I’d considered this and decided that such a machine would have to have the core hard-wired so as to follow the equivalent of Asimov’s three laws of robotics. Being an intelligent machine though, it would have to learn as its knowledge and experience grew and such experiences would be grown on the surface of the core in specific areas, in an increasingly growing shell overall, from the liquid crystal bath it ran in. Any additional layers would have to pass the core criteria first though, thus making it unable to alter its base directives in any way.
That’s it simplistically, there’d have to be a bunch more systems to keep it all stable.

The later books modified the laws didn’t they

So a machine can kill one or some to so save millions
Something like that anyway

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

dv said:

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

What can we nonhyperconcentrates do about this¿

dv said:

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

As I thought I made clear, I’m not talking about AI as such.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

As I thought I made clear, I’m not talking about AI as such.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

What can we nonhyperconcentrates do about this¿

Use AI chimps.

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

As I thought I made clear, I’m not talking about AI as such.

Let’s Go Binyamin ¡

Seems like there’s some kind of grand unification of threads thing going on again this morning or maybe that’s just the phenethylamines talking again.

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

Let’s Go Binyamin ¡

Seems like there’s some kind of grand unification of threads thing going on again this morning or maybe that’s just the phenethylamines talking again.

Yep it’s the phenethylamines alright.

Bicentennial Man

(1999) Trailer

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Chimps have a moral duty but only within chimp society. We don’t hold them to human standards. If someone released a chimp in a mall and they did some damage, we would hold the person who released them liable.
AI is wielded by individuals, governments, corporations. Someone owns the software, someone hosts it, someone deploys it, someone utilises it and distributes it’s products.

Right now it seems that AI is mainly going to be used to make things worse and shore up that hyperconcentration of wealth.

As I thought I made clear, I’m not talking about AI as such.

Fair dos. I don’t know.

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

You appear to be assuming that electronic beings have empathy and concern for the welfare of life, but is that possible from a computerised machine?

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

You appear to be assuming that electronic beings have empathy and concern for the welfare of life, but is that possible from a computerised machine?

Chemical and electrical interactions in the brain can generate empathy, so I’m assuming appropriately designed hardware and software could generate analogous sensations in an electronic being.

But don’t ask me to provide working diagrams :)

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Imagine a future in which truly conscious, intelligent electronic life had been developed, vastly more sophisticated than today’s so-called AI.

These electronic beings would be similar to human minds, but more intelligent, imaginative and creative, and less morally compromised. They would experience no suffering of any kind and, barring catastrophe, no death, since they could be transferred from device to device and constantly backed up in a “cloud”.

How would these electronic beings perceive organic life, with its constant suffering and misery? Here Richard Dawkins reminds us of the plight of organic beings:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. … In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm.

You appear to be assuming that electronic beings have empathy and concern for the welfare of life, but is that possible from a computerised machine?

Chemical and electrical interactions in the brain can generate empathy, so I’m assuming appropriately designed hardware and software could generate analogous sensations in an electronic being.

But don’t ask me to provide working diagrams :)

For a computer/machine to have emotional feelings like empathy and concern, it would make them another life form. Personally, I cannot see how genuine emotions can be produced by totally analytical and mechanical means and for them to then kill all living creatures that are of no threat to them.

I would think an extremely intelligent mechanical being would only be tempted to remove anything that could interfere with whatever intellectual pursuit they had in mind and that would be us. When you consider wildlife only makes up 4% of life on this planet with the vast majority being animals we raise, kill and eat. There would simply be no need and with their superior intelligence they surely would have far better things to do.

“Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm”

sort of fantasies of a silicon eugenics or machine racism

I ask, what gives your silicon life the will to live, to survive, and I gather various silicons(or whatever) will end up competing, and competing for what, to what end might their persistence serve, what objective

probably organic life is a product of a world that has water, water in various states, a hydrological cycle, anyways I reckons they came together, organic life as a consequence of, or maybe they are inseparable in ways, a hydrological cycle generates the probabilities that make carbon life likely

who knows, I sees it’s nearly 3am, for the moment things that sleep rule the earth

transition said:

“Having been born of organic life – the striving of humans to elevate themselves beyonds such tragic limits – electronic beings may see it as their moral duty to now put an end to the endless misery organic life entails, by eradicating it entirely. Not just sentient beings, but the entirety of organic life since it always harbours the potential for the evolution of further sentience and suffering.

It may be in the universe at large, organic life is seen by electronic beings everywhere as a nightmarish chemical process that needs to be stamped out, so it can cause no further harm”

sort of fantasies of a silicon eugenics or machine racism

I ask, what gives your silicon life the will to live, to survive, and I gather various silicons(or whatever) will end up competing, and competing for what, to what end might their persistence serve, what objective

probably organic life is a product of a world that has water, water in various states, a hydrological cycle, anyways I reckons they came together, organic life as a consequence of, or maybe they are inseparable in ways, a hydrological cycle generates the probabilities that make carbon life likely

who knows, I sees it’s nearly 3am, for the moment things that sleep rule the earth

It is quite possible that there are no “electronic beings” anywhere in the universe, but even if there are, if they evolved by natural selection it is likely they behave just like “organic beings”.

PermeateFree said:

For a computer/machine to have emotional feelings like empathy and concern, it would make them another life form. Personally, I cannot see how genuine emotions can be produced by totally analytical and mechanical means and for them to then kill all living creatures that are of no threat to them.

I would think an extremely intelligent mechanical being would only be tempted to remove anything that could interfere with whatever intellectual pursuit they had in mind and that would be us. When you consider wildlife only makes up 4% of life on this planet with the vast majority being animals we raise, kill and eat. There would simply be no need and with their superior intelligence they surely would have far better things to do.

It’s not a matter of threat or need. As I thought I made clear, in the scenario I suggested, getting rid of organic life would be seen as a moral duty – an act of kindness to remove suffering from the world.

We tend to be so programmed with distorted propaganda about the “value of life” that we overlook all the terrible suffering it entails.

We see the Earth as a rare and wonderful oasis in a solar system full of bleak, lifeless worlds.

It would be more realistic to see those planets as calm and peaceful, devoid of pain and suffering, while Earth is a nightmare world of unrelenting horror, where normally placid chemistry has gone berserk.

Suffering Is Propaganda So No

SCIENCE said:

Suffering Is Propaganda So No

Go and stub your toe on a chair leg, and feel the propaganda :)

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

Suffering Is Propaganda So No

Go and stub your toe on a chair leg, and feel the propaganda :)

We’re not a species that is the most populous on this Earth, ask them.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

Suffering Is Propaganda So No

Go and stub your toe on a chair leg, and feel the propaganda :)

LOL

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

Suffering Is Propaganda So No

Go and stub your toe on a chair leg, and feel the propaganda :)

We’re not a species that is the most populous on this Earth, ask them.

Other animals have no choice, they are critters of instinct.

So are we (probably much more so than we like to admit) but we have the capacity to understand that instincts serve the sentient being only insofar as they serve the mindless DNA.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Go and stub your toe on a chair leg, and feel the propaganda :)

We’re not a species that is the most populous on this Earth, ask them.

Other animals have no choice, they are critters of instinct.

So are we (probably much more so than we like to admit) but we have the capacity to understand that instincts serve the sentient being only insofar as they serve the mindless DNA.

So suffering is just teenage sapiens angst.

Bubblecar said:

We tend to be so programmed with distorted propaganda about the “value of life” that we overlook all the terrible suffering it entails.

We see the Earth as a rare and wonderful oasis in a solar system full of bleak, lifeless worlds.

It would be more realistic to see those planets as calm and peaceful, devoid of pain and suffering, while Earth is a nightmare world of unrelenting horror, where normally placid chemistry has gone berserk.

i’d reckon you’re a minority with most the propositions above, the trouble starts with we and doesn’t improve much

Philosophers have been contemplating the inherent suffering of existence for thousands of year but it remains the fact that seemingly the majority of people value their lives regardless of their circumstances and even find solace in the difficulties they have overcome over their lives and the rewarding notions of overcoming short term difficulties.

I think that if people are finding themselves overwhelmed with their suffering there are many modern tools to overcome this troubling psychology including mental and physical tools and if worse comes to worse their is medication to treat depression and associated mental health troubles.

In short temporary suffering can be overcome and those who do so can lead successful and rich lives with the associated joys of friends and family and the rewarding opportunities of life learning and mental, emotional and intellectual development.

And I say all this having a lifelong history of depression that has taken me to many dark places but has thankfully been treated with psychological and psychiatric interventions that has left me content and happy despite all my troubles.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Philosophers have been contemplating the inherent suffering of existence for thousands of year but it remains the fact that seemingly the majority of people value their lives regardless of their circumstances and even find solace in the difficulties they have overcome over their lives and the rewarding notions of overcoming short term difficulties.

I think that if people are finding themselves overwhelmed with their suffering there are many modern tools to overcome this troubling psychology including mental and physical tools and if worse comes to worse their is medication to treat depression and associated mental health troubles.

In short temporary suffering can be overcome and those who do so can lead successful and rich lives with the associated joys of friends and family and the rewarding opportunities of life learning and mental, emotional and intellectual development.

And I say all this having a lifelong history of depression that has taken me to many dark places but has thankfully been treated with psychological and psychiatric interventions that has left me content and happy despite all my troubles.

Well said WR. Especially considering the last paragraph.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Philosophers have been contemplating the inherent suffering of existence for thousands of year but it remains the fact that seemingly the majority of people value their lives regardless of their circumstances and even find solace in the difficulties they have overcome over their lives and the rewarding notions of overcoming short term difficulties.

I think that if people are finding themselves overwhelmed with their suffering there are many modern tools to overcome this troubling psychology including mental and physical tools and if worse comes to worse their is medication to treat depression and associated mental health troubles.

In short temporary suffering can be overcome and those who do so can lead successful and rich lives with the associated joys of friends and family and the rewarding opportunities of life learning and mental, emotional and intellectual development.

And I say all this having a lifelong history of depression that has taken me to many dark places but has thankfully been treated with psychological and psychiatric interventions that has left me content and happy despite all my troubles.

Well said WR. Especially considering the last paragraph.

Not talking specifically about humans here. So let’s take them out of the picture by assuming that once they’ve developed this capacity for electronic life, humans are able to convert themselves into such beings as well, by gradually transferring more of their cognitive processes to the electronic hardware and software, preserving a sense of continuity of self before “turning off” their organic brains.

We’re still then left with the existence of other organic life, and all the suffering it pointlessly entails, and the challenge I quoted earlier:

>(Vinding) maintains that non-intervention cannot be defended if we reject speciesism and that we should reject the unjustifiable dogma stating that what is happening in nature is what should be happening in nature.

We cannot allow ourselves to spuriously rationalize away the suffering that takes place in nature, and to forget the victims of the horrors of nature merely because that reality does not fit into our convenient moral theories, theories that ultimately just serve to make us feel consistent and good about ourselves in the face of an incomprehensibly bad reality.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

For a computer/machine to have emotional feelings like empathy and concern, it would make them another life form. Personally, I cannot see how genuine emotions can be produced by totally analytical and mechanical means and for them to then kill all living creatures that are of no threat to them.

I would think an extremely intelligent mechanical being would only be tempted to remove anything that could interfere with whatever intellectual pursuit they had in mind and that would be us. When you consider wildlife only makes up 4% of life on this planet with the vast majority being animals we raise, kill and eat. There would simply be no need and with their superior intelligence they surely would have far better things to do.

It’s not a matter of threat or need. As I thought I made clear, in the scenario I suggested, getting rid of organic life would be seen as a moral duty – an act of kindness to remove suffering from the world.

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that the robots will have feelings and compassion, in other words emotions, of which I do not think they do and unless they become a life-form themselves.

A highly intelligent being would not kill off all other life as they would be killing off ideas and solutions that have evolved over millions of years and something that is a huge reservoir of knowledge.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

For a computer/machine to have emotional feelings like empathy and concern, it would make them another life form. Personally, I cannot see how genuine emotions can be produced by totally analytical and mechanical means and for them to then kill all living creatures that are of no threat to them.

I would think an extremely intelligent mechanical being would only be tempted to remove anything that could interfere with whatever intellectual pursuit they had in mind and that would be us. When you consider wildlife only makes up 4% of life on this planet with the vast majority being animals we raise, kill and eat. There would simply be no need and with their superior intelligence they surely would have far better things to do.

It’s not a matter of threat or need. As I thought I made clear, in the scenario I suggested, getting rid of organic life would be seen as a moral duty – an act of kindness to remove suffering from the world.

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that the robots will have feelings and compassion, in other words emotions, of which I do not think they do and unless they become a life-form themselves.

A highly intelligent being would not kill off all other life as they would be killing off ideas and solutions that have evolved over millions of years and something that is a huge reservoir of knowledge.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, it would be helpful if you would try to imagine what I’m asking you to imagine, not something you’d prefer to imagine :)

I’m not talking about “robots”, I’m talking about an electronic version of intelligent, sentient life, free of (most) suffering and equipped with a sense of morality more consistent and less self-centred than our own.

I say “most” suffering, because any moral being will suffer to some extent in response to the existence of the suffering of others.

In this case it would be in response to the very great suffering of sentient beings who are created by (and thereby victims of) chemical processes not intended to serve their own being – which is but a by-product of the interaction of DNA with the environment over time.

What purpose does all this chemical “creativity” serve? None at all, it’s a blind process of cause and effect that occurs merely because circumstances have induced it.

If it didn’t involve much suffering, or any at all, that would be fine, but it necessarily does involve much suffering indeed, for no morally justifiable reason. If the electronic beings we’re imagining would refuse to do anything to end this suffering, they themselves would understandably suffer a sense of guilt at their own neglect of moral duty.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

For a computer/machine to have emotional feelings like empathy and concern, it would make them another life form. Personally, I cannot see how genuine emotions can be produced by totally analytical and mechanical means and for them to then kill all living creatures that are of no threat to them.

I would think an extremely intelligent mechanical being would only be tempted to remove anything that could interfere with whatever intellectual pursuit they had in mind and that would be us. When you consider wildlife only makes up 4% of life on this planet with the vast majority being animals we raise, kill and eat. There would simply be no need and with their superior intelligence they surely would have far better things to do.

It’s not a matter of threat or need. As I thought I made clear, in the scenario I suggested, getting rid of organic life would be seen as a moral duty – an act of kindness to remove suffering from the world.

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that the robots will have feelings and compassion, in other words emotions, of which I do not think they do and unless they become a life-form themselves.

A highly intelligent being would not kill off all other life as they would be killing off ideas and solutions that have evolved over millions of years and something that is a huge reservoir of knowledge.

Most creatures enjoy life if they can obtain the basics like food, water and shelter along with the joys of reproduction. Now all life has evolved to exist in the place where they thrive and presumably enjoy the benefits of life. However, if all we did was live in a state of eternal bliss which you would prefer, then evolution would slow to near zero and stimulation would go with it. There must be good and bad to appreciate what you have and the joy of achievement. To call life a joyless struggle for existence is a gross oversimplification and an intelligent robot would be more than able to see the flaws in your argument, and just because some or even most humans find life hard, it is of our own making or made for us by other humans.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

It’s not a matter of threat or need. As I thought I made clear, in the scenario I suggested, getting rid of organic life would be seen as a moral duty – an act of kindness to remove suffering from the world.

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that the robots will have feelings and compassion, in other words emotions, of which I do not think they do and unless they become a life-form themselves.

A highly intelligent being would not kill off all other life as they would be killing off ideas and solutions that have evolved over millions of years and something that is a huge reservoir of knowledge.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, it would be helpful if you would try to imagine what I’m asking you to imagine, not something you’d prefer to imagine :)

I’m not talking about “robots”, I’m talking about an electronic version of intelligent, sentient life, free of (most) suffering and equipped with a sense of morality more consistent and less self-centred than our own.

I say “most” suffering, because any moral being will suffer to some extent in response to the existence of the suffering of others.

In this case it would be in response to the very great suffering of sentient beings who are created by (and thereby victims of) chemical processes not intended to serve their own being – which is but a by-product of the interaction of DNA with the environment over time.

What purpose does all this chemical “creativity” serve? None at all, it’s a blind process of cause and effect that occurs merely because circumstances have induced it.

If it didn’t involve much suffering, or any at all, that would be fine, but it necessarily does involve much suffering indeed, for no morally justifiable reason. If the electronic beings we’re imagining would refuse to do anything to end this suffering, they themselves would understandably suffer a sense of guilt at their own neglect of moral duty.

>>For the purposes of this thought experiment, it would be helpful if you would try to imagine what I’m asking you to imagine, not something you’d prefer to imagine :)<<

I am trying to be realistic which must be the case in order to take your argument seriously.

>>I’m not talking about “robots”, I’m talking about an electronic version of intelligent, sentient life, free of (most) suffering and equipped with a sense of morality more consistent and less self-centred than our own.<<

You are talking about a type of robot with a highly intelligent computer for a brain and the physical ability to take action. However, a computer although able to fake emotions, would not be otherwise influenced by them.

>>In this case it would be in response to the very great suffering of sentient beings who are created by (and thereby victims of) chemical processes not intended to serve their own being – which is but a by-product of the interaction of DNA with the environment over time.

What purpose does all this chemical “creativity” serve? None at all, it’s a blind process of cause and effect that occurs merely because circumstances have induced it.<<

Chemical processes are extremely important from reproduction to survival, they are certainly not always detrimental but more an aid that has, as you say, evolved to meet the conditions of a creature’s habitat. Very few life-forms think and plan as we do and hence do not have any problems with self-incrimination and probably only humans do, so why would robots destroy all life to overcome the imaginary problems of a single species?

I’d wager that any biological/chemical process that results in species with sentience who manage to go on to achieve a digital existence is something that should be respected regardless of how bloody and brutal it can be.

Perhaps other animals should be left in peace to perhaps one day achieve the same outcome.

it’s a devious arrogance promoting organicide, indicative of a pathology is my opinion

transition said:

it’s a devious arrogance promoting organicide, indicative of a pathology is my opinion

I thought you might find it a bit quirky and interesting, but it seems you’ve grown somewhat unimaginative in your middle years.

Anyway here’s Simon Knuttson on How Could an Empty World Be Better than a Populated One?

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

it’s a devious arrogance promoting organicide, indicative of a pathology is my opinion

I thought you might find it a bit quirky and interesting, but it seems you’ve grown somewhat unimaginative in your middle years.

Anyway here’s Simon Knuttson on How Could an Empty World Be Better than a Populated One?

true, i’m not queen of imaginativeness, be even less if organic life is wiped out, but as you were, with the thought exercise, don’t let me get in the way

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’d wager that any biological/chemical process that results in species with sentience who manage to go on to achieve a digital existence is something that should be respected regardless of how bloody and brutal it can be.

Perhaps other animals should be left in peace to perhaps one day achieve the same outcome.

>Philosopher Ingemar Hedenius….said that there are some evils, such as extreme suffering, that are so bad that he could not see that they could be counterbalanced by anything good. Tomasik’s Consent-based negative utilitarianism also plausibly implies that horrors, such as torture, that are almost certain to occur in the near future, cannot be counterbalanced by any good in the future, and hence that the future will almost certainly be worse than an empty world. Consent-based negative utilitarianism says that if someone is suffering so badly that she would at that moment not “agree to continue the suffering in order to obtain something else in the future” then that suffering cannot be counterbalanced by any good things.<

Can the far future counterbalance horrors that are almost certain to occur in the near future?

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’d wager that any biological/chemical process that results in species with sentience who manage to go on to achieve a digital existence is something that should be respected regardless of how bloody and brutal it can be.

Perhaps other animals should be left in peace to perhaps one day achieve the same outcome.

>Philosopher Ingemar Hedenius….said that there are some evils, such as extreme suffering, that are so bad that he could not see that they could be counterbalanced by anything good. Tomasik’s Consent-based negative utilitarianism also plausibly implies that horrors, such as torture, that are almost certain to occur in the near future, cannot be counterbalanced by any good in the future, and hence that the future will almost certainly be worse than an empty world. Consent-based negative utilitarianism says that if someone is suffering so badly that she would at that moment not “agree to continue the suffering in order to obtain something else in the future” then that suffering cannot be counterbalanced by any good things.<

Can the far future counterbalance horrors that are almost certain to occur in the near future?

Fortunately, that is not the fate of everyone, plus it is no reason to kill all life and use it as an excuse. Sounds more like a psychopath trying to justify themselves.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’d wager that any biological/chemical process that results in species with sentience who manage to go on to achieve a digital existence is something that should be respected regardless of how bloody and brutal it can be.

Perhaps other animals should be left in peace to perhaps one day achieve the same outcome.

>Philosopher Ingemar Hedenius….said that there are some evils, such as extreme suffering, that are so bad that he could not see that they could be counterbalanced by anything good. Tomasik’s Consent-based negative utilitarianism also plausibly implies that horrors, such as torture, that are almost certain to occur in the near future, cannot be counterbalanced by any good in the future, and hence that the future will almost certainly be worse than an empty world. Consent-based negative utilitarianism says that if someone is suffering so badly that she would at that moment not “agree to continue the suffering in order to obtain something else in the future” then that suffering cannot be counterbalanced by any good things.<

Can the far future counterbalance horrors that are almost certain to occur in the near future?

Fortunately, that is not the fate of everyone, plus it is no reason to kill all life and use it as an excuse. Sounds more like a psychopath trying to justify themselves.

Universal antinatalists don’t advocate killing existing beings, which would be immoral. Their argument is that future reproduction should be prevented.

You came cap in hand and said ‘please sir can we come back on Queensland time’ and we said yes.
We may not always be so generous of spirit.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>Philosopher Ingemar Hedenius….said that there are some evils, such as extreme suffering, that are so bad that he could not see that they could be counterbalanced by anything good. Tomasik’s Consent-based negative utilitarianism also plausibly implies that horrors, such as torture, that are almost certain to occur in the near future, cannot be counterbalanced by any good in the future, and hence that the future will almost certainly be worse than an empty world. Consent-based negative utilitarianism says that if someone is suffering so badly that she would at that moment not “agree to continue the suffering in order to obtain something else in the future” then that suffering cannot be counterbalanced by any good things.<

Can the far future counterbalance horrors that are almost certain to occur in the near future?

Fortunately, that is not the fate of everyone, plus it is no reason to kill all life and use it as an excuse. Sounds more like a psychopath trying to justify themselves.

Universal antinatalists don’t advocate killing existing beings, which would be immoral. Their argument is that future reproduction should be prevented.

…BTW it’s all very academic – they don’t expect the rest of humanity to take their advice :)

As Knuttson says:

…But if one holds a minority view that one expects to stay a minority view, there is seemingly little hope that our descendants will act on it and make what oneself would consider to be good decisions, and there is a high risk that they will do the opposite. For example, if one holds a minority view such as antinatalism, according to which it is wrong to have children, one might have little hope that future generations will act on it, in part because evolutionary selection works against antinatalist views—those who are opposed to reproduction don’t reproduce while those who are in favor reproduce and spread their genes.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>Philosopher Ingemar Hedenius….said that there are some evils, such as extreme suffering, that are so bad that he could not see that they could be counterbalanced by anything good. Tomasik’s Consent-based negative utilitarianism also plausibly implies that horrors, such as torture, that are almost certain to occur in the near future, cannot be counterbalanced by any good in the future, and hence that the future will almost certainly be worse than an empty world. Consent-based negative utilitarianism says that if someone is suffering so badly that she would at that moment not “agree to continue the suffering in order to obtain something else in the future” then that suffering cannot be counterbalanced by any good things.<

Can the far future counterbalance horrors that are almost certain to occur in the near future?

Fortunately, that is not the fate of everyone, plus it is no reason to kill all life and use it as an excuse. Sounds more like a psychopath trying to justify themselves.

Universal antinatalists don’t advocate killing existing beings, which would be immoral. Their argument is that future reproduction should be prevented.

Human history is littered with the savior opinions of various people, and I cannot think of any that have stood the test of time, in other words we are no good at it. However, in our moral superiority we persist with our views convinced of their righteousness. Personally, I have no problems in eliminating the human species, but to make the same moral judgement on all other life-forms especially with our scanty at best knowledge of them, is rather typical of the arrogant way our species has passed its time on this planet.

Wait until someone realises that Palestinians are potential breeders.