[ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly AIis a mistaken idea.)

[spike]

...
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
...
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Ethics and Emotions are not axioms (Was Re: Unfriendly
> AIis a mistaken idea.)
> 
> 
> Brent Allsop wrote:
> > John K Clark wrote:
> >> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Ethics, motivation, emotions are based on axioms
> >>>
...
> >
> > For example, existence or survival is absolutely better, more
> > valuable, more moral, more motivating than non existence...

> Absolutely more valuable in what way...    Is the survival of ebola an
> unqualified moral value?   ... - samantha


I am always looking for moral axioms on the part of the environmentalists
that differ from my own.  Samantha may have indicated one with her question.
Does *any* life form currently on this planet have a moral right to
existence?  If we could completely eradicate all mosquitoes for instance,
would we do it?  My answer to that one is an unqualified JA.

I see it as an interesting question however, one on which modern humanity
has apparently split opinions.  Humans are indigenous to Africa but our
species has expanded its habitat to cover the globe.  Not all species are
compatible with humanity, therefore those species have seen steadily
shrinking habitat with no change in sight.  Do we accept as an axiom that
all species deserve preservation?  Or just all multi-cellular beasts?  All
vertebrates?  All warm blooded animals?  All mammals?  All beasts, plants
that can survive among human civilization?

spike