It’s frustrating where an honest exchange fails to achieve any noticeable convergence… Might try once more and if not, well, Aumann does not apply here, anyhow.
My main point: “to survive, a species has to be slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”. I am not sure if this is the disagreement, maybe you think that it’s not a valid implication (and by implication I mean the converse, “intolerant ⇒ stunted”).
If I understood correctly, your objection to Three Worlds Collide is (mostly?) descriptive rather than prescriptive: you think the story is unrealistic, rather than dispute some normative position that you believe it defends. However, depending on the interpretation of that maxim you formulated, it is (IMO) either factually wrong or entirely consistent with the story of Three Worlds Collide.
Do you believe real world humans are “slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”? If your answer is positive, how do you explain all (often extremely violent) conflicts over religion and political ideology over the course of human history? Whatever explanation you propose to these conflicts, what prevents it from explaining the conflict with the Baby-Eaters described in Three Worlds Collide? If your answer to the first question is negative, how do you explain the survival of the human species so far? Whatever explanation you provide to this survival, what prevents it from explaining the continued survival of the human species until the imaginary future in the story?
If I understood correctly, your objection to Three Worlds Collide is (mostly?) descriptive rather than prescriptive: you think the story is unrealistic, rather than dispute some normative position that you believe it defends.
I am not a moral realist, so I cannot dispute someone else’s morals, even if I don’t relate to them, as long as they leave me alone. So, yes, descriptive, and yes, I find the story a great read, but that particular element, moral expansionism, does not match the implied cohesiveness of the multi-world human species.
Do you believe real world humans are “slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”?
Yes. Definitely.
how do you explain all (often extremely violent) conflicts over religion and political ideology over the course of human history?
Generally, economic or some other interests in disguise. Like distracting the populous from the internal issues. You can read up on the reasons behind the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc. You can also notice that when the morals lead the way, extreme religious zealotry leads to internal instability, like the fractures inside Christianity and Islam. So, my model that you call “factually wrong” seems to fit the observations rather well, though I’m sure not perfectly.
Whatever explanation you provide to this survival, what prevents it from explaining the continued survival of the human species until the imaginary future in the story?
My point is that humans are behaviorally both much more and much less tolerant of the morals they find deviant than they profess. In the story I would have expected humans to express extreme indignation over babyeaters’ way of life, but do nothing about it beyond condemnation.
Alright, now I finally understand your claim. I still disagree with it: I think that your cynicism about human motivations is unsupported by evidence. But, that’s not a debate I’m interested to start atm. Thank you for explaining your views.
It’s frustrating where an honest exchange fails to achieve any noticeable convergence… Might try once more and if not, well, Aumann does not apply here, anyhow.
My main point: “to survive, a species has to be slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”. I am not sure if this is the disagreement, maybe you think that it’s not a valid implication (and by implication I mean the converse, “intolerant ⇒ stunted”).
If I understood correctly, your objection to Three Worlds Collide is (mostly?) descriptive rather than prescriptive: you think the story is unrealistic, rather than dispute some normative position that you believe it defends. However, depending on the interpretation of that maxim you formulated, it is (IMO) either factually wrong or entirely consistent with the story of Three Worlds Collide.
Do you believe real world humans are “slow to act against the morals it finds abhorrent”? If your answer is positive, how do you explain all (often extremely violent) conflicts over religion and political ideology over the course of human history? Whatever explanation you propose to these conflicts, what prevents it from explaining the conflict with the Baby-Eaters described in Three Worlds Collide? If your answer to the first question is negative, how do you explain the survival of the human species so far? Whatever explanation you provide to this survival, what prevents it from explaining the continued survival of the human species until the imaginary future in the story?
I am not a moral realist, so I cannot dispute someone else’s morals, even if I don’t relate to them, as long as they leave me alone. So, yes, descriptive, and yes, I find the story a great read, but that particular element, moral expansionism, does not match the implied cohesiveness of the multi-world human species.
Yes. Definitely.
Generally, economic or some other interests in disguise. Like distracting the populous from the internal issues. You can read up on the reasons behind the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc. You can also notice that when the morals lead the way, extreme religious zealotry leads to internal instability, like the fractures inside Christianity and Islam. So, my model that you call “factually wrong” seems to fit the observations rather well, though I’m sure not perfectly.
My point is that humans are behaviorally both much more and much less tolerant of the morals they find deviant than they profess. In the story I would have expected humans to express extreme indignation over babyeaters’ way of life, but do nothing about it beyond condemnation.
Alright, now I finally understand your claim. I still disagree with it: I think that your cynicism about human motivations is unsupported by evidence. But, that’s not a debate I’m interested to start atm. Thank you for explaining your views.