[ExI] Isn't Bostrom seriously bordering on the reactionary?
analyticphilosophy at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 23:31:34 UTC 2011
2011/6/16 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> Does environmentalists or pro-choice activists or trade unionists have
> credibility problems because they do not explicitely take into consideration
> interests different from those of the environment, or of pregnant women
> seeking termination, or of their members?
Any environmentalists who refuse to compare and contrast different
plans and the safety and efficacy of those plans absolutely lose
credibility, as they should.
There are no constituents for whom your and Giulio's approach increase
expected utility, not even yourselves. It is very strange to see you
advocate for a position (i.e., don't acknowledge existential or other
risks) that is *less* likely to bring about a posthuman future.
If you believe the risks matter, but that Nick shouldn't mention them,
then it just seems like you're inviting caricaturing and demonization
by the Luddites, who already like to (falsely...?) claim we don't care
about the risks or problems that could come about with certain
approaches to certain technologies.
"Do you want to live forever?"
"Dunno. Ask me again in five hundred years."
(_Guards! Guards!_, Terry Pratchett)
More information about the extropy-chat