I want the Sun to keep existing, I am not “uninformed”, and I think it would be good if I am able to get in the way of people who want to dismantle the Sun, and bad if I were not able to do so.
when things are orders of magnitude more cost effective than other things, this is a good argument against arguments based on simple preference / aesthetics
I strongly disagree. This is not any kind of argument against arguments based on simple preferences / aesthetics, much less a good one. In fact, it’s not clear to me that there are any such arguments at all (except ones based on [within-agent] competing preferences / aesthetics).
Just because a lot of people in a democracy disapproves of things does not mean that market forces shouldn’t be able to disagree with them and be correct about that.
You are perhaps missing the point of democracy.
(Now, if your view is “actually democracy is bad, we ought to have some other system of government”, fair enough, but then you should say so explicitly.)
the Luddites who had little concept of how technological and economic progress lifts everyone out of poverty
The Luddites had a completely correct expectation about how “technological and economic progress” would put them, personally and collectively, out of jobs, which it in fact did. They were not “lifted out of poverty” by mechanization—they were driven into poverty by it.
future computational-life forms will be just as meaningful as the meat-based ones today
You neither have nor can have any certainty about this, or even high confidence. Neither is it relevant—future people do not exist; existing people do.
should not sacrifice orders of magnitudes more life-years than will be lived on Earth
Declining to create people is not analogous to destroying existing people. To claim otherwise is tendentious and misleading. There is no “sacrificing” involved in what we are discussing.
most decisions should be given to as small a group as possible (ideally an individual) who is held accountable for the outcome being good, and is given the resources to make the decision well
Decisions should “be given”—by whom? The people—or else your position is nonsense. Well, I say that we should not give decision-making power to people who will dismantle the Sun. You speak of being “held accountable”—once again, by whom? Surely, again: the people. And that means that the people may evaluate the decisions that the one has made. Well, I say we should evaluate the decision to dismantle the Sun, pre-emptively—and judge it unacceptable. (Why wait until after the fact, when it will be too late? How, indeed, could someone possibly be “held accountable” for dismantling the Sun, after the deed is done? Absurdity!)
I want the Sun to keep existing, I am not “uninformed”, and I think it would be good if I am able to get in the way of people who want to dismantle the Sun, and bad if I were not able to do so.
I strongly disagree. This is not any kind of argument against arguments based on simple preferences / aesthetics, much less a good one. In fact, it’s not clear to me that there are any such arguments at all (except ones based on [within-agent] competing preferences / aesthetics).
You are perhaps missing the point of democracy.
(Now, if your view is “actually democracy is bad, we ought to have some other system of government”, fair enough, but then you should say so explicitly.)
The Luddites had a completely correct expectation about how “technological and economic progress” would put them, personally and collectively, out of jobs, which it in fact did. They were not “lifted out of poverty” by mechanization—they were driven into poverty by it.
You neither have nor can have any certainty about this, or even high confidence. Neither is it relevant—future people do not exist; existing people do.
Declining to create people is not analogous to destroying existing people. To claim otherwise is tendentious and misleading. There is no “sacrificing” involved in what we are discussing.
Decisions should “be given”—by whom? The people—or else your position is nonsense. Well, I say that we should not give decision-making power to people who will dismantle the Sun. You speak of being “held accountable”—once again, by whom? Surely, again: the people. And that means that the people may evaluate the decisions that the one has made. Well, I say we should evaluate the decision to dismantle the Sun, pre-emptively—and judge it unacceptable. (Why wait until after the fact, when it will be too late? How, indeed, could someone possibly be “held accountable” for dismantling the Sun, after the deed is done? Absurdity!)