Re: physical pain is bad (was Re: Dynamic ethics)

From: BillK (
Date: Tue Jan 24 2006 - 03:36:17 MST

On 1/23/06, Jeff Medina wrote:
> One of the main problems I personally have with being forced to live
> this or that way or do thus-and-such or undergo certain medical
> procedures is that I can't be sure the higher being has my best
> interests in mind. But neither can puppies and neither can children,
> and that fact doesn't stop us from forcing our decisions on puppies &
> children, so why should our petulant protests stop posthumans from
> doing the same to us? "Waaah, I wanna do what *I* want, dad!" is not
> an acceptable response.
> If you have a way out of this, please let me know, because I can't see
> it. But I go where the rational justification leads, so just noting
> that the rational conclusion makes us (or even 85% of the population)
> uneasy or unhappy doesn't change the fact that it's the right answer.
> This "new ethics" you seek that would solve everyone's problems
> simultaneously no matter what view of ethics or the future or autonomy
> (etc.) they hold sure would be nice. But that doesn't mean it exists
> or is constructable.

The question of being forced to live certain ways because the FAI
knows best will never arise.

When the singularity AI appears you will worship and love them.
Altering human brains as required will be done according to the
objectives of the FAI.

It may decide to go away and leave humanity alone or it may decide to
'improve' humanity. But if it decides to stick around, humanity will
be happy with whatever the FAI decides.

Do you really think humanity will remain the same, discussing with a
sort of more powerful than usual dictator how we would like him to run
the country?
Come on! :)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT