[extropy-chat] Prime Directive

[Heartland]

> On 10/26/06, A B <austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In a hypothetical situation: The sooner "we" arrive to help pre-industrial
>> civilization A, the fewer inhabitants of A will die and/or suffer. As I
>> argued in a different post, it is logically and physically *impossible* to
>> ethically violate a conscious entity that: does not exist, has never
>> existed, and never will exist (ie. it is impossible to violate the "future"
>> beings of civilization A who "would have lived" if we had never intervened.)


Robert Bradbury:
> Oh, my god, you mean all those E. coli I am happily flushing down the toilet
> a couple of times a day (clearly "pre-industrial") deserve to be saved? [1]
> Shit, I'm just being an evil and bad person every time I go to the john [2].

I doubt that's what he meant.


> Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what to
> preserve or not preserve.  Yes I know -- without that our moral compass is
> adrift in a sea of chaos.  Life is a dish almost always served cold.

Ok, what is, in your opinion, "correct" criterion for deciding what to preserve or 
not to preserve and why?

Slawomir