[extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...

[Samantha Atkins]

On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:50 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

>
> On 4/4/06, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> (Jeffrey Herrlich?) wrote:
>
> As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct  
> to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if  
> they were simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original"  
> version would presumably have.
>
> Why?   Why can't a "conscious being" create copies of itself and  
> treat them as toys?  Where precisely do "basic rights" come from?  
> [1] As spike points out there are all sorts of fun things you can  
> do with the copies.

For the same reason you can't treat other human level beings who are  
not copies of you as toys with impunity.

>
> Jeffrey, I'm not sure you were around but this has been discussed  
> (long ago and far far away(?)...) under the topic of "Can you kill  
> your copies?"  I sorted ended up as being cast as the "bad boy" of  
> the list for asserting that there is little "wrong" with killing  
> your copies (once they have served the purpose they were created for).

You would make a fine AI overlord.  :-)

> This position can probably be put into the same bucket with my  
> consideration of nuking Mecca for the purpose of eliminating the  
> icons which form the fundamental supports for one of the world's  
> religions.

Let's not go back there again.  As such an action would directly  
enflame nearly 20% of humanity against all others it is demonstrably  
a really stupid idea leading immediately to major death and destruction.

> [Because that religion is based upon an irrational foundation and  
> is one whose belief systems currently serves to justify the  
> elimination of significant numbers of "copies.]  (The only  
> alternative to such "proactive" action ( i.e. the "proactionary  
> principle") is to *wait* and slowly watch as more copies are killed  
> in the faint hope that these meme-washed people will slowly come to  
> their senses [2].  (Where is the moral basis for justifying that  
> sins of ommission occupy higher ground than sins of commission?)
>

We have been over all this ground before.  Why reopen it now?


> One has to realize that the basis for most of current ethics is  
> centered around the idea that one should "do unto others as you  
> would have them do unto you".  Of course if one realizes that their  
> are such things as copies and luck of the draw might end up making  
> one a member of that class, then one would have no reason to expect  
> not being treated "badly" as a copy since were the roles reversed  
> you would probably be the one responsible for the bad treatment.
>

The way it works is that we all get to expect relatively as good  
treatment as we grant to others.  Don't do unto others what would  
really suck if it was done to you.

> Getting back to the topic of copies -- someone please show me where  
> there is a fundamental "right" for copies to engage in independent  
> execution.  If that exists I'm being an extremely immoral person  
> because I've got several CDs sitting on my desk with copies of  
> Linux on them that aren't running at all.  I need to go find a  
> stick quick and beat myself for being so "bad"...
>

Now you are being absurd.

- samantha


> Robert
>
> 1. One might argue that it is immoral to treat ones copies cruelly,  
> particularly to cause them physical pain, this can easily be worked  
> around by engineering the copies with the inability to feel pain  
> (there are humans who are born with gene defects which have this  
> property).
>

Then they aren't "copies" and you have changed the problem.

> 2. Daniel Dennet gave a talk at Harvard on his book "Breaking the  
> Spell" (of religion) last night.  He pointed out the concept that  
> "Religions being in their death throes" was but one of five(!)  
> possible outcomes for the ongoing religious tsunami humanity has  
> been embroiled in during the last few thousand years.  By not  
> taking proactive positions with respect to the elimination of what  
> he refered to as "toxic" religious ideas [3] one is implicitly  
> accepting the position that killing ones (imperfect) copies is  
> acceptable.
>

You have a lot of explaining to do to make that intelligible.

> 3. So as to not misrepresent Dennet, he primarily classed "toxic"  
> religions are those in which certain ideas serve as a basis for  
> killing people.  (If one can't promote the survival and replication  
> of ones meme set through a simple (or complex) sales pitch and  
> endless repetition one can eliminate the existance of competing  
> meme sets by eliminating the carriers of those memes.)

Certain ideas versus your arbitrary right to kill just because you  
feel like if they are your copies?  Is killing for one set of ideas  
so much worse than your willingness to commit mass murder and embroil  
humanity in religious war for the sake of the supposed defense of  
other ideas and persons that you hold dear?  Perhaps we can take a  
page from some religions staying that killing others is generally  
wrong a bit more seriously.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060405/44153123/attachment.html>