[extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? ( An attempted survey )

[Lee Corbin]

Jeffrey writes

> My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose
> of the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly
> cruel and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about
> bringing universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this
> dead Universe, then *what* is its purpose?

Many natural phenomena occur---actually, the overwhelming portion
---that do not have a purpose. They just happen. To say, for example,
that the purpose of Maxwell's, Heaviside's, and Fitz-Gerald's
laws were to bestow the benefits of electricity on humankind sort
of misses the point. The same could be said of Moore's Law: it
doesn't really have a purpose.

Those who work towards speeding the advent of technology, whether
that results in a slow takeoff or a fast one, do so in the hope
that they can ameliorate its effects on us.

> If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to
> do absolutely *anything*, 

Your meaning isn't clear to me. What does "allow" here mean? Do
you mean that the government should not allow certain actions,
or do you mean that you/we ought to disapprove of them? I favor
entities having as much freedom as possible, but I disapprove
when this freedom curtails the freedom of others. I would also
hope that a ruling AI would grant the entities within its realm
the maximum possible freedom that is practical.

> What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of
> lower value and importance than a "real" being?

I think that I agree with you; who says that a simulated being
has lower value?  But even to put the question in such terms
invites confusion: value to whom?  Therefore, I'll rephrase:
given a volume of space, I approve of it hosting an entity
over hosting vacuum. I do not necessarily prefer a "real" being
in this volume over an "artificial" one.

> Imagine yourself in the shoes of the "simulated" being, at the
> complete mercy (or lack thereof) of your "real" simulator.
> Does it still feel like an acceptable situation? I doubt it.

Certainly not, at least not in your scenario of the real being
torturing the simulated one.  But until someone on this list
claims that "real" beings have some kind of "rights" that
artificial beings don't, this argument is moot.

Now on the other hand, if I own some hardware and choose to run
someone or something, then I ought also be able to determine
the events transpiring on my hardware. In other words, no entity
from the outside should (in my opinion) interfere with what I do.
A respect for private property has taken us a long way, and I
expect that it's the correct route in the future as well.

> A universe whose post-human occupants do nothing to stop
> gratuitous torture of "simulated" beings is just about as
> bad a Dystopia as I can possibly imagine.

Wherefore this notion that once humans can conduct simulations
they'll immediately revert to torturing trillions of sentients?
It's extremely unlikely. As an analogy, suppose that all laws
against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow;
would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush
to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for
torture?

It's an old argument, but I do not favor monitoring my neighbor
so closely that I can know exactly what he's doing, and I do 
not favor my going into his property to straighten him out if
I find that I don't like what he's doing.

Lee