[ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9

spike spike66 at att.net
Sun Feb 9 02:06:46 UTC 2014



From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:38 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] moral guidance please: was Anders on io9


spike <spike66 at att.net> , 8/2/2014 6:05 AM:



Behalf Of Adrian Tymes


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Ethics hipsters, guidance please?

>>>…Don't.  Straight-up no.  You'd be having laughs - *just* laughs - at the expense - and it is an expense, in stress and hassle if nothing else - of someone with whom you have no prior involvement… 



>>…Thanks Adrian.  As I recall you were on the strictly puritan end of the spectrum last time something like this came up.  Other opinions?


>…I think Adrian is roughly right…


Ja I concluded likewise.  Decided to refrain from the Purity Prufrock caper.


>… This is why I think the joke needs a second stage: if it was just fooling some people that there was an idiot to laugh at, then there is not much fun. But if some actually try to exploit it... then I think there is potential to reel them in into hilarity… Anders Sandberg…


It seems no one has attempted a huge gag with DNA, and the whole system desperately needs some levity.  


A gentler variation on a theme would be to create a phony public profile, perhaps with the Purity Prufrock letter as I proposed in nearly that form.  You wouldn’t actively send anyone any 23mail but rather, you would just show up to your 1000 cousins as one who appears to be a half-wit blue-blood British noble with a sporty mother.  Then it would be a similar comedy-trap, but less responsibility on my part: I didn’t send them anything.  If anyone chooses to respond to a public profile, that isn’t much different from commenting on someone else’s website.  The respondent makes the effort, chooses to go to someone’s public profile on their own time, without any specific invitation (but no prohibition either) and collects bogus info.  Well, hell that practically defines the internet.  Nothing here is quite what it appears.  


If I were to do something like that, my conscience would be clear.  I doubt many would respond however.  It’s too passive.  I doubt we would get a dozen replies; wouldn’t be worth the 99 bucks.


A variation would be to put a knock-out drop dead gorgeous fashion model photo on one’s public profile.  I am quite confident that plenty of people do that anyway, or some variation on that theme: post pictures of themselves from when they were smokin’ hot curvy 19 instead of as flabby 47.  You can take 30 yr old photos and make them look like they were made recently, by changing backgrounds for instance, using Photoshop.  Never believe anything you read online.


Still another way to experiment would be to post the Purity Prufrock letter in one of the 23andMe public forums.  That wouldn’t even cost anything if you are already in 23andMe, and you wouldn’t be targeting anyone’s DNA relatives.  As written, I think it would be clear enough it was a gag, but you might reel in a few fish with that.  I wouldn’t see it as much different from putting some bogus silliness in the comments section of a website.








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140208/284973cb/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list