[extropy-chat] Re: (SOCIO/ETHICAL) Risk averse imortalists?

[Jef Allbright]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

> While the reply below is interesting my motivation for the question 
> was a bit different. To what extent does our rational self interest, 
> especially extended to the possibility of indefinitely long life. make 
> us less willing to stand up to variously sized evils that are not 
> directly threatening to our life?   I would expect a tendency to keep 
> a bit lower profile than the population at large and to take less 
> risks.  Yet I know from experience such conservatism is by no means 
> universal among us.
>
We can't effectively predict the outcome of such multivariate multiorder 
scenarios in an evolving environment, but we can illuminate and explore 
some general principles that will generally apply.

Indefinitely extended lifespans will tend to increase emphasis on 
reputation and attendant moral behavior because the rewards and 
consequences of one's behavior will be similarly extended, but this 
applies only to individuals who remain closely coupled with society at 
large.  Much evil is done for the sake of expediency, while taking the 
longer view implies greater awareness, leading to actions that generally 
work better over a greater context and are therefore considered superior 
by a larger group.

More options become available with more enabling technology.  Our 
capabilities to observe, analyze, model and predict are growing rapidly 
and, with a little luck, will eventually supervene our tendencies to act 
in fear against an unknown Other.  To be effective this must be 
bilateral, and we can be thankful that it is the nature of such enabling 
technologies to spread strongly.  That said, there will always remain 
the threat of damage to ourselves from without or of malignancy within, 
and while technology will allow us to minimize and disperse/distribute 
the risk, vigilance and self-sacrifice will remain key factors in the 
survival equation.

As moral agents, our choices hinge on concept of self.   It's already 
part of our evolved nature to act in support of interests greater than 
the individual.  Instinctive willingness to sacrifice one's life for 
one's children, or to put oneself in harm's way for one's team or group, 
exists because it works (promotes survival and greater growth.)  But 
popular understanding of rational self-interest does not yet encompass 
this larger view, hence ongoing debates over misconceptions of 
altruism.  A good example is the so-called paradox of the Prisoners' 
Dilemma.  It is logically and mathematically "obvious" that the rational 
choice is to defect within this artificially limited scenario.  But it's 
clear from a broader context that the optimum strategy is to cooperate.  
As human society matures, this kind of metarationality, corresponding to 
increased scope of awareness, will lead to conscious moral 
decision-making based on a concept of self that transcends our fixed and 
limited  identification with our meat bodies.

I anticipate a "golden age" of enhanced cooperation, driven by increased 
awareness of the value of diversity within a framework of common goals, 
but we must focus now on surviving the transition.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net