The question of what people should exist seems complex and subtle, but basic economic theory suggests it may get a lot simpler in the future. Let me explain, via three possible questions. 1. First, consider the binary question, “should creature X exist or not?” Economically, creature X should exist if it wants to exist and it can pay for itself. That is, in a supply and demand world, if our only choice is whether X should exist, then an X that wants to exist should actually exist if its lifespan cost of resources used (including paying for any net externalities) is no more than the value it gives by working for others. To reject the existence of such a creature is to reject an efficiency gain, i.e., a way to potentially make everyone better off. (These costs and benefits are of course marked at market prices. A creature’s value might include donations from other creatures who valued its existence.)
Plenty creature exist today that don't defend themselves against being eaten. They are domestic cattle who have outsourced their defense to humans. Humans eat them but they are protected from being eaten by other predators instead of humans.
Outsourcing specialization is nearly always more efficient. In our economy, we have outsourced the military and the police to the government who (hopefully) are lower cost than everyone having to do it for themselves.
If profit derived from capital exceeds profit derived from labor but labor is *required* to guide the capital then you could have the situation whereby entertainment sims are very likley in direct contrast to your hobbsian view of EMS having to pay for their very existence with no leisure.
But only if the mediocrity principle is true also. If it's not then you are most assuredly right in your competitive winner-takes-all scenario.
John, that sounds *much* more sensible than the idea that future creatures are likely to be "indifferent about their own existence". Most agents can't accomplish any of their goals if they do not exist. Even Asimov's laws specified self-preservation.
Suicide doesn't prevent existence. It only limits the total region of space-time of a suicidal person's existence. It can never undo past pain and suffering, either.
No non-existent entity can consent to their coming into being. And unless we invent super-duper biotech interventions, all life implies unpleasantness, and virtually all life implies non-negligible risk of severe suffering. The option of suicide does not negate this ethically relevant fact.
"Economically, creature X should exist if it wants to exist and it can pay for itself. That is, in a supply and demand world, if our only choice is whether X should exist, then an X that wants to exist should actually exist if its lifespan cost of resources used (including paying for any net externalities) is no more than the value it gives by working for others. "
Maybe I've missed a comment or twelve, but this seems to me to be an impossible standard to have, based in the simple restriction of Entropy.
Life can only exist in an energy gradient (In our case, powered by the Sun.). The very nature of life is that it takes useful energy and survives, like any other machine, by converting some of that to heat energy - only the sheer abundance of useful energy coming from our sun makes the creation of so many sub-strata of energy possible, from plant's to animals, microbes, et al. But the nature of the game is that it is a losing game.
Any life form that passed this test would be a perpetual motion machine.
1) "Should" looks like an ethical question. Why reduce ethics to economics?
2) Your two answers to "should creature X exist or not?" contradict each other. A idler of inherited wealth, or for that matter a person living off government welfare, can pass the first version -- they want to exist and can pay -- but not the second. Are we to read the second version as an endorsement of revolution against the wealthy? And if not, why?
3) In the comments you make it clear that you use "creature" in an inclusive sense, including non- or sub-sentients. It seems clear you're including animals. Therefore very few humans, and certainly no American or meat-eater, can say he (not "it") "works for others" nearly enough to compensate for the harm we do. And furthermore we just don't care. If "creature" includes plants, all animals fail, by definition. Should we first cleanse the natural world of at least predators and perhaps all of our fellow animals, then kill ourselves? If not, then obviously we have some freedom to ignore your principle; why not then opt out of the whole thing in favor of something more palatable?
4) Your second version of the principle states than we should continue existing if our work for others exceeds our costs (rather like machinery). But the principle is stated in universal form, which would imply that those others in turn justify their existence by working for others. Unless you allow for someone who gets to exist for his own sake, there must be circularity in who works for whom. Either way is an objection. The circularity speaks for itself. If we admit of someone who exists for his own sake, why not, say, everyone with at least a human-level consciousness?
You think it extravagant for us currently existing creatures to lay claim to the entire universe. I agree. So when you say "pay their way", you must mean that new creatures can (1) pay for their own creation and (2) pay any continuing support burdens on old creatures. But I assume you do not mean (3) pay for the value of the comic commons they consume during their life, because old creatures have no claim to that. Is this correct?
(Also, does "legacy assets" just refer to things owned by previously existing creatures?)
I guess a better way to put it: I don't understand what equilibrium situation (specifically, what property rights exist) we are considering when asking whether new creatures should be created.
As for why I don't agree to take into consideration the "preferences" of non-existent entities, it's simply because the question "would you prefer not to have existed?" is meaningless. I can kill you, and I can make you not have existed from the point of view of the outside world, but I can't make you not have existed - because you did. Even if I erase your existence, it still happened.
Or perhaps you’ll say ethics assures you it is simply impossible to be unfair to creatures who don’t yet exist.
Well, that's precisely the point (though phrased somewhat one-sidedly). If we disagree on that (which we do) then every other argument we can make to each other is irrelevant.
But wearing my efficient economist hat, I cannot support such naked selfish aggression, even if I thought it would work.
Reading your pledge, it all depends on the meaning of "clients" - whether they exist or don't exist. Back to the previous point, again.
Is it more ethical for you Americans to subsidize reproduction of Chinese or Eastern Europeans by buying their labour? Who prints the currency in the future world? Won’t physical violence disrupt future markets?
Robin, many of those who disagree with you support the creation of a Singleton as the alternative to free market competition. In a Singleton scenario, an entirely different set of creatures would exist. It's hard to see how either scenario can be considered a Pareto improvement over the other so we need some additional ethical principles to choose between them. This seems so obvious that I'm entirely confused by your statement.
Robin, reading your post, and similar ones (the "Dreamtime" series), I am struck by the impression that you seem to regard most of the horror people feel at the possibility of an impoverished, heavily populated world as due to a fear of a loss of status due to poverty (especially in this post when you refer to a desire to be "tinpot dictators").
I can't speak for everyone else, but that is not the case at all for me, to me the reason this future sounds horrible is that sounds boring as all hell. What is the point of creating new creatures to enjoy existing if they spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week doing nothing but boring, tedious work. What's the point of creating them if they have no time to appreciate their existence because they are too busy working to pay it off?
I care very little about my relative status, I submit as evidence for that statement the fact that I have forgone many opportunities to improve my status because they would waste precious free time I could be using to have fun and enjoy myself. Why should I pay for cryonics (and let me say that you and Eliezer have convinced me that is a good idea, for the most part) if I'm going to awaken in the future where I'll never have time to spend time with my family, socialize, watch movies, read books, or anything else fun because everyone is working nonstop to pay for their existence. Your future sounds like a horrible day at the office that never ends.
Robin, why are you paying for cryonics if you think this will happen to you? I know you're lucky enough to have a rewarding, stimulating job today, but do you really think you'll be that lucky again when they thaw/emulate you in the future? Are you paying for cryonics on the off chance that you're wrong, or am I visualizing this future incorrectly.
P.S. I am still signing up for cryonics because it is possible that I am incorrectly visualizing this projected future of yours and it isn't as mind-crushingly dull as it sounds.
Adding new creatures isn't necessarily a pareto improvement - off the top of my head, the increase in competition is bad for existing people/creatures doing the same thing, and creating intelligent life for exploitation is likely to create a culture in which exploitation is more socially accepted, which is bad for people/creatures with low power.
Wei, the ethical principle in which I have the most confidence is that Pareto improvements are good. This makes me very suspicious when ethical intuitions tells folks to prevent apparent Pareto improvements for unspecified reasons. Genuine attempts to follow such intuitions can also be naked selfish aggression.
Plenty creature exist today that don't defend themselves against being eaten. They are domestic cattle who have outsourced their defense to humans. Humans eat them but they are protected from being eaten by other predators instead of humans.
Outsourcing specialization is nearly always more efficient. In our economy, we have outsourced the military and the police to the government who (hopefully) are lower cost than everyone having to do it for themselves.
@Robin:
Assumption: most profit derives from labor.
If profit derived from capital exceeds profit derived from labor but labor is *required* to guide the capital then you could have the situation whereby entertainment sims are very likley in direct contrast to your hobbsian view of EMS having to pay for their very existence with no leisure.
But only if the mediocrity principle is true also. If it's not then you are most assuredly right in your competitive winner-takes-all scenario.
John, that sounds *much* more sensible than the idea that future creatures are likely to be "indifferent about their own existence". Most agents can't accomplish any of their goals if they do not exist. Even Asimov's laws specified self-preservation.
Suicide doesn't prevent existence. It only limits the total region of space-time of a suicidal person's existence. It can never undo past pain and suffering, either.
No non-existent entity can consent to their coming into being. And unless we invent super-duper biotech interventions, all life implies unpleasantness, and virtually all life implies non-negligible risk of severe suffering. The option of suicide does not negate this ethically relevant fact.
"Economically, creature X should exist if it wants to exist and it can pay for itself. That is, in a supply and demand world, if our only choice is whether X should exist, then an X that wants to exist should actually exist if its lifespan cost of resources used (including paying for any net externalities) is no more than the value it gives by working for others. "
Maybe I've missed a comment or twelve, but this seems to me to be an impossible standard to have, based in the simple restriction of Entropy.
Life can only exist in an energy gradient (In our case, powered by the Sun.). The very nature of life is that it takes useful energy and survives, like any other machine, by converting some of that to heat energy - only the sheer abundance of useful energy coming from our sun makes the creation of so many sub-strata of energy possible, from plant's to animals, microbes, et al. But the nature of the game is that it is a losing game.
Any life form that passed this test would be a perpetual motion machine.
Jonnan
1) "Should" looks like an ethical question. Why reduce ethics to economics?
2) Your two answers to "should creature X exist or not?" contradict each other. A idler of inherited wealth, or for that matter a person living off government welfare, can pass the first version -- they want to exist and can pay -- but not the second. Are we to read the second version as an endorsement of revolution against the wealthy? And if not, why?
3) In the comments you make it clear that you use "creature" in an inclusive sense, including non- or sub-sentients. It seems clear you're including animals. Therefore very few humans, and certainly no American or meat-eater, can say he (not "it") "works for others" nearly enough to compensate for the harm we do. And furthermore we just don't care. If "creature" includes plants, all animals fail, by definition. Should we first cleanse the natural world of at least predators and perhaps all of our fellow animals, then kill ourselves? If not, then obviously we have some freedom to ignore your principle; why not then opt out of the whole thing in favor of something more palatable?
4) Your second version of the principle states than we should continue existing if our work for others exceeds our costs (rather like machinery). But the principle is stated in universal form, which would imply that those others in turn justify their existence by working for others. Unless you allow for someone who gets to exist for his own sake, there must be circularity in who works for whom. Either way is an objection. The circularity speaks for itself. If we admit of someone who exists for his own sake, why not, say, everyone with at least a human-level consciousness?
Sorry, I'm still confused.
You think it extravagant for us currently existing creatures to lay claim to the entire universe. I agree. So when you say "pay their way", you must mean that new creatures can (1) pay for their own creation and (2) pay any continuing support burdens on old creatures. But I assume you do not mean (3) pay for the value of the comic commons they consume during their life, because old creatures have no claim to that. Is this correct?
(Also, does "legacy assets" just refer to things owned by previously existing creatures?)
I guess a better way to put it: I don't understand what equilibrium situation (specifically, what property rights exist) we are considering when asking whether new creatures should be created.
As for why I don't agree to take into consideration the "preferences" of non-existent entities, it's simply because the question "would you prefer not to have existed?" is meaningless. I can kill you, and I can make you not have existed from the point of view of the outside world, but I can't make you not have existed - because you did. Even if I erase your existence, it still happened.
Or perhaps you’ll say ethics assures you it is simply impossible to be unfair to creatures who don’t yet exist.
Well, that's precisely the point (though phrased somewhat one-sidedly). If we disagree on that (which we do) then every other argument we can make to each other is irrelevant.
But wearing my efficient economist hat, I cannot support such naked selfish aggression, even if I thought it would work.
Reading your pledge, it all depends on the meaning of "clients" - whether they exist or don't exist. Back to the previous point, again.
Is it more ethical for you Americans to subsidize reproduction of Chinese or Eastern Europeans by buying their labour? Who prints the currency in the future world? Won’t physical violence disrupt future markets?
Robin, many of those who disagree with you support the creation of a Singleton as the alternative to free market competition. In a Singleton scenario, an entirely different set of creatures would exist. It's hard to see how either scenario can be considered a Pareto improvement over the other so we need some additional ethical principles to choose between them. This seems so obvious that I'm entirely confused by your statement.
Regarding the second part of my post, although I didn't know it when I wrote the post, it turns out Robin has written on this:
http://www.overcomingbias.c...http://www.overcomingbias.c...
He is assuming there is a limit on density. There might be. I don't know.
See this post.
Robin, reading your post, and similar ones (the "Dreamtime" series), I am struck by the impression that you seem to regard most of the horror people feel at the possibility of an impoverished, heavily populated world as due to a fear of a loss of status due to poverty (especially in this post when you refer to a desire to be "tinpot dictators").
I can't speak for everyone else, but that is not the case at all for me, to me the reason this future sounds horrible is that sounds boring as all hell. What is the point of creating new creatures to enjoy existing if they spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week doing nothing but boring, tedious work. What's the point of creating them if they have no time to appreciate their existence because they are too busy working to pay it off?
I care very little about my relative status, I submit as evidence for that statement the fact that I have forgone many opportunities to improve my status because they would waste precious free time I could be using to have fun and enjoy myself. Why should I pay for cryonics (and let me say that you and Eliezer have convinced me that is a good idea, for the most part) if I'm going to awaken in the future where I'll never have time to spend time with my family, socialize, watch movies, read books, or anything else fun because everyone is working nonstop to pay for their existence. Your future sounds like a horrible day at the office that never ends.
Robin, why are you paying for cryonics if you think this will happen to you? I know you're lucky enough to have a rewarding, stimulating job today, but do you really think you'll be that lucky again when they thaw/emulate you in the future? Are you paying for cryonics on the off chance that you're wrong, or am I visualizing this future incorrectly.
P.S. I am still signing up for cryonics because it is possible that I am incorrectly visualizing this projected future of yours and it isn't as mind-crushingly dull as it sounds.
Adding new creatures isn't necessarily a pareto improvement - off the top of my head, the increase in competition is bad for existing people/creatures doing the same thing, and creating intelligent life for exploitation is likely to create a culture in which exploitation is more socially accepted, which is bad for people/creatures with low power.
Wei, the ethical principle in which I have the most confidence is that Pareto improvements are good. This makes me very suspicious when ethical intuitions tells folks to prevent apparent Pareto improvements for unspecified reasons. Genuine attempts to follow such intuitions can also be naked selfish aggression.