Consider two possible “genocide” scenarios: Space Genocide – We expect the galaxy to have many diverse civilizations, with diverse behaviors and values, though we don’t know much about them. Their expansion tendencies would naturally lead to a stalemate, with different civilizations controlling different parts of the galaxy. Imagine, however, that it turns out we luckily have a chance to suddenly destroy all other civilizations in the galaxy, so that our civilization can expand to take it all over. (Other galaxies remain unchanged.) Let this destruction process be mild, such as sudden unanticipated death or a sterility allowing one last generation to live out its life. There is a modest (~5%) chance we will fail and if we fail all civilizations in the galaxy are destroyed. Should we try this option?
if we have decendents, they would all be different because we have an infinte amount of futures, thus in the distant future we might have the technology to do that, but then if we did that we would destroy all "smart" aliens, thus not learning about them, their race, and their language, so Robin you're veiws about the space and time genocide would be exactly good
Robin, you have been a proponent of "dealism". Causality can flow back and forth across space, so we can make deals with spatially distant civilizations to mutually limit genocide. Temporally distant civilizations cannot respond to us or make any deals, nor can they harm us in any way. So we can genocide them to our hearts content without any negative repercussions.
That is a strange concept of “voluntary”. To me, “voluntary” means with informed consent, that is the person doing the choosing, knows the possible outcomes and then voluntary chooses one of them to happen.
If individuals don't yet exist, they can't give informed consent, but if you could emulate them, then you could figure out what choice they would make if they had the opportunity. But that is not what Robin is proposing. He is proposing substituting your own decision and preempting any decision that future entities might make.
For it to be “voluntary”, you would have to assume that future individuals that won't exist would voluntarily choose to not exist.
Space genocide involves changing existing agents against their will. They will feel outrage, despair, terror, et cetera.
Time genocide involves changing only potential agents, who cannot feel anything. The process is, at least potentially, voluntary on the part of the subjects.
It is having values like this and thinking like this and acting like this that represent the greatest existential threat to humans.
“How so”? you ask. A 5% chance of humanity extinction isn't that great. But a 5% change of humanity extinction repeated by every human who is disposed to make such a bargain results in virtually certain extinction. Five humans per generation and in a millennia there is a 0.99996 chance that humans are extinct.
This is the bargain that those playing chicken with AGW are making.
Robin, no-one but you considers murder and not maximizing rate of reproduction to be equivalent. This is the same thing.
Also, when we talk about 'diverse civilization, with diverse behaviors and values', we automatically bring in an anthropomorphic schema, emphasizing the sorts of diverse values our civilization once failed to value and now values. There are other possible comparisons though, such as to the 'values' of slugs, chess programs, or stock markets. Merely using the word 'value' confuses the concept being discussed.
Will seems to be getting to the core points here. Counterfactuals are generally a breeding ground for confusion.
I find both proposals grotesquely unacceptable but symptomatic of a top-down dictatorial social power hierarchy driven by perverse, selfish, narcissistic egocentric and ignorant one-sidedness. One that sees all other individuals below one in the power hierarchy as objects to be used, used-up, discarded or destroyed at a whim, and similarly sees oneself as an object to be used by those higher in the power hierarchy.
At a whim, potentially killing or destroying all the intelligent races in the galaxy without even knowing how many are there? With essentially zero gain? This is the result of zero-sum mindset. The idea that if all other intelligent beings lose, then I win.
This is the mindset of those who should never be allowed to have power because they have such a constricted idea of what is valuable and what should be preserved. These are people who would burn libraries unread because they don't know how to use the information contained in them so as to deny that information to those who could use it.
"Imagine, however, that it turns out we luckily have a chance to suddenly destroy all other civilizations in the galaxy, so that our civilization can expand to take it all over."
I wouldn't call it lucky and I don't recommend it. We don't know what we'd lose from not having contact with very different minds. The universe is bigger than any individual or any species can comprehend, but having more angles on the problem can be very helpful.
And no, we can't squeeze all the good out of their alternate viewpoints by studying the remnants of their civilizations.
The unlucky thing is living in a universe where that sort of attack is possible. If we could use it on them, they could use it on us, which leads to some harder problems than "oh, lah-de-dah, how pleasant to have a universe with no competing alien races". Does this tech include the possibility of sterilizing fractions of the human race?
It now looks probable that I'm much more idealistic than the typical OV commenter.
I think that would be a permissible variation, essentially the split is between:
1. Ensure that your preferred civilization/species dominates all space2. Ensure that your preferred civilization/species dominates all time
Since I don't have a strongly preferred civilization/species, but instead a few guiding values that point towards change and increasing complexity, I'm not sure how I should think about this question.
We expect time-stretched civilizations to reach a higher level of cultural sophistication than space-stretched civilizations, which may play into our evaluation.
I disagree with your assertion about our overwhelming preferences here.
The time-genocide scenario seems far /far/ more horrorific than the space-genocide scenario. That's just my gut speaking.
Rationalizing, I would reference the arguments of above commenters about (1) alien civilizations and (2) preventing progeny from realizing their full potential.
On reading the chapter your linked, I ended up admiring "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" as a concept even more than i used to. Robin might consider CEV as time genocide, I don't.
The real picture is that of one dominant age&#8212let us suppose the hundredth century A.D.&#8212which resists all previous ages most successfully and dominates all subsequent ages most irresistibly, and thus is the real master of the human species.
if we have decendents, they would all be different because we have an infinte amount of futures, thus in the distant future we might have the technology to do that, but then if we did that we would destroy all "smart" aliens, thus not learning about them, their race, and their language, so Robin you're veiws about the space and time genocide would be exactly good
Robin, you have been a proponent of "dealism". Causality can flow back and forth across space, so we can make deals with spatially distant civilizations to mutually limit genocide. Temporally distant civilizations cannot respond to us or make any deals, nor can they harm us in any way. So we can genocide them to our hearts content without any negative repercussions.
That is a strange concept of “voluntary”. To me, “voluntary” means with informed consent, that is the person doing the choosing, knows the possible outcomes and then voluntary chooses one of them to happen.
If individuals don't yet exist, they can't give informed consent, but if you could emulate them, then you could figure out what choice they would make if they had the opportunity. But that is not what Robin is proposing. He is proposing substituting your own decision and preempting any decision that future entities might make.
For it to be “voluntary”, you would have to assume that future individuals that won't exist would voluntarily choose to not exist.
Space genocide involves changing existing agents against their will. They will feel outrage, despair, terror, et cetera.
Time genocide involves changing only potential agents, who cannot feel anything. The process is, at least potentially, voluntary on the part of the subjects.
It is having values like this and thinking like this and acting like this that represent the greatest existential threat to humans.
“How so”? you ask. A 5% chance of humanity extinction isn't that great. But a 5% change of humanity extinction repeated by every human who is disposed to make such a bargain results in virtually certain extinction. Five humans per generation and in a millennia there is a 0.99996 chance that humans are extinct.
This is the bargain that those playing chicken with AGW are making.
Robin, no-one but you considers murder and not maximizing rate of reproduction to be equivalent. This is the same thing.
Also, when we talk about 'diverse civilization, with diverse behaviors and values', we automatically bring in an anthropomorphic schema, emphasizing the sorts of diverse values our civilization once failed to value and now values. There are other possible comparisons though, such as to the 'values' of slugs, chess programs, or stock markets. Merely using the word 'value' confuses the concept being discussed.
Will seems to be getting to the core points here. Counterfactuals are generally a breeding ground for confusion.
I find both proposals grotesquely unacceptable but symptomatic of a top-down dictatorial social power hierarchy driven by perverse, selfish, narcissistic egocentric and ignorant one-sidedness. One that sees all other individuals below one in the power hierarchy as objects to be used, used-up, discarded or destroyed at a whim, and similarly sees oneself as an object to be used by those higher in the power hierarchy.
At a whim, potentially killing or destroying all the intelligent races in the galaxy without even knowing how many are there? With essentially zero gain? This is the result of zero-sum mindset. The idea that if all other intelligent beings lose, then I win.
This is the mindset of those who should never be allowed to have power because they have such a constricted idea of what is valuable and what should be preserved. These are people who would burn libraries unread because they don't know how to use the information contained in them so as to deny that information to those who could use it.
Guys who talk about our descendant's potential: What is potential?
If I have the capability to do A, B, or C, which one represents achieving my full potential?
It has to be "The best one". Who says what is best? It can't be me, since my preferences vary across different futures. So it has to be my ancestor.
Well then.
"Imagine, however, that it turns out we luckily have a chance to suddenly destroy all other civilizations in the galaxy, so that our civilization can expand to take it all over."
I wouldn't call it lucky and I don't recommend it. We don't know what we'd lose from not having contact with very different minds. The universe is bigger than any individual or any species can comprehend, but having more angles on the problem can be very helpful.
And no, we can't squeeze all the good out of their alternate viewpoints by studying the remnants of their civilizations.
The unlucky thing is living in a universe where that sort of attack is possible. If we could use it on them, they could use it on us, which leads to some harder problems than "oh, lah-de-dah, how pleasant to have a universe with no competing alien races". Does this tech include the possibility of sterilizing fractions of the human race?
It now looks probable that I'm much more idealistic than the typical OV commenter.
"Kill all humans" - A Bender-approved philosophy
I think that would be a permissible variation, essentially the split is between:
1. Ensure that your preferred civilization/species dominates all space2. Ensure that your preferred civilization/species dominates all time
Since I don't have a strongly preferred civilization/species, but instead a few guiding values that point towards change and increasing complexity, I'm not sure how I should think about this question.
I could imagine a scenario with aliens that I like better than most humans. Can I then opt to join them and kill all (other) humans?
We expect time-stretched civilizations to reach a higher level of cultural sophistication than space-stretched civilizations, which may play into our evaluation.
I disagree with your assertion about our overwhelming preferences here.
The time-genocide scenario seems far /far/ more horrorific than the space-genocide scenario. That's just my gut speaking.
Rationalizing, I would reference the arguments of above commenters about (1) alien civilizations and (2) preventing progeny from realizing their full potential.
Ultimately though this is a gut reaction.
Probability of survival is more important than population size, evolutionary speaking.
On reading the chapter your linked, I ended up admiring "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" as a concept even more than i used to. Robin might consider CEV as time genocide, I don't.
C. S. Lewis was a critic of time genocide:
The real picture is that of one dominant age&#8212let us suppose the hundredth century A.D.&#8212which resists all previous ages most successfully and dominates all subsequent ages most irresistibly, and thus is the real master of the human species.