I don’t think humans as a species or earth creatures as a … evolutionary life-root, have coherent goals or linear development in a way that makes this concern valid.
If a more intelligent self-sustaining agent or group comes along and replaces humans, good. Whether that’s future-humans, human-created AIs, or ETs doesn’t matter all that much.
Did the people of the 19th century make a mistake by creating and educating the next generations of humans which replaced them?
As an aside, it’s far too late to stop broadcasts. The marginal risk of discovery imposed by any action today is pretty much zero—we’ve been sending LOTS of EM outward in all directions for many many decades, and there’s no way to recall any of it.
Heh, it’s been long enough (~35 years, since BBS systems in the early 80s) that I’ve gone by the name that I often completely forget it has any context outside of my usage.
In this case, I’m using “good” in the sense of “I don’t think I, or any other dead-by-then being, has standing to object”.
A lot of humans care (or at least signal that they care in far-mode) about what happens in the future. That doesn’t make it sane or reasonable.
Why does it matter to anyone today whether the beings inhabiting Earth’s solar system in 20 centuries are descended from apes, or made of silicon, or came from elsewhere?
I think we can all agree that an entity’s anticipated future experiences matter to that entity. I hope (but would be interested to learn otherwise) that imaginary events such as fiction don’t matter. In between, there is a hugely wide range of how much it’s worth caring about distant events.
I’d argue that outside your light-cone is pretty close to imaginary in terms of care level. I’d also argue that events after your death are pretty unlikely to effect you (modulo basilisk-like punishment or reward).
I actually buy the idea that you care about (and are willing to expend resources on) subjunctive realities on behalf of not-quite-real other people. You get present value from imagining good outcomes for imagined-possible people even if they’re not you. This has to get weaker as it gets more distant in time and more tenuous in connection to reality, though.
But that’s not even the point I meant to make. Even if you care deeply about the far future for some reason, why is it reasonable to prefer weak, backward, stupid entities over more intelligent and advanced ones? Just because they’re made of similar meat-substance as you seems a bit parochial, and hypocritical given the way you treat slightly less-capable organic beings like lettuce.
Woodchopper’s post indicated that he’d violently interfere with (indirectly via criminalization) activities that make it infinitesimally more likely to be identified and located by ETs. This is well beyond reason, even if I overstated my long-term lack of care.
You have failed to answer my question. Why does anything at all matter? Why does anything care about anything at all? Why don’t I want my dog to die? Obviously, when I’m actually dead, I won’t want anything at all. But there is no reason I cannot have preferences now regarding events that will occur after I am dead. And I do.
Dude, if you are preaching Might Makes Right you don’t have to bring up nonsense like “standing to object”.
Anything that can replace us will get to decide if the fact that it has done so is “good”. Our arguments will have failed to convince the universe, and we will be gone. Physics is a garbage arbitrator, but from its decision there can be no appeal.
Arguments made by humans can effect other humans, and from that effect their actins, and from that effect the universe.
In this case, the argument is about whether humans should resist or acquiesce to their own replacement. I take Dagn’s “good” to indicate support for the latter option.
I mean, he can chime in, but I think he is looking at it from the perspective of a “thing that has happened”. We don’t have standing to object because we are gone.
I doubt he thinks there is a duty to roll over. (Don’t want to put words in your mouth tho, man. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here.) The vibe I get from his argument is that, once we are gone, who cares what we think?
As an aside, it’s far too late to stop broadcasts. The marginal risk of discovery imposed by any action today is pretty much zero—we’ve been sending LOTS of EM outward in all directions for many many decades, and there’s no way to recall any of it.
Thankfully aside from military radar, which is highly directional and sporadic, the rest is lost in the background noise after a few dozen lightyears.
I don’t think humans as a species or earth creatures as a … evolutionary life-root, have coherent goals or linear development in a way that makes this concern valid.
If a more intelligent self-sustaining agent or group comes along and replaces humans, good. Whether that’s future-humans, human-created AIs, or ETs doesn’t matter all that much.
Did the people of the 19th century make a mistake by creating and educating the next generations of humans which replaced them?
As an aside, it’s far too late to stop broadcasts. The marginal risk of discovery imposed by any action today is pretty much zero—we’ve been sending LOTS of EM outward in all directions for many many decades, and there’s no way to recall any of it.
Define “good”.
His name is literally Dagon.
Heh, it’s been long enough (~35 years, since BBS systems in the early 80s) that I’ve gone by the name that I often completely forget it has any context outside of my usage.
In this case, I’m using “good” in the sense of “I don’t think I, or any other dead-by-then being, has standing to object”.
At the present for most social changes there are people who object because the change goes against their values.
You might not care, but a lot of humans do care, and will continue to care. That’s why we’re discussing it.
A lot of humans care (or at least signal that they care in far-mode) about what happens in the future. That doesn’t make it sane or reasonable.
Why does it matter to anyone today whether the beings inhabiting Earth’s solar system in 20 centuries are descended from apes, or made of silicon, or came from elsewhere?
Why does anything at all matter?
I think we can all agree that an entity’s anticipated future experiences matter to that entity. I hope (but would be interested to learn otherwise) that imaginary events such as fiction don’t matter. In between, there is a hugely wide range of how much it’s worth caring about distant events.
I’d argue that outside your light-cone is pretty close to imaginary in terms of care level. I’d also argue that events after your death are pretty unlikely to effect you (modulo basilisk-like punishment or reward).
I actually buy the idea that you care about (and are willing to expend resources on) subjunctive realities on behalf of not-quite-real other people. You get present value from imagining good outcomes for imagined-possible people even if they’re not you. This has to get weaker as it gets more distant in time and more tenuous in connection to reality, though.
But that’s not even the point I meant to make. Even if you care deeply about the far future for some reason, why is it reasonable to prefer weak, backward, stupid entities over more intelligent and advanced ones? Just because they’re made of similar meat-substance as you seems a bit parochial, and hypocritical given the way you treat slightly less-capable organic beings like lettuce.
Woodchopper’s post indicated that he’d violently interfere with (indirectly via criminalization) activities that make it infinitesimally more likely to be identified and located by ETs. This is well beyond reason, even if I overstated my long-term lack of care.
You have failed to answer my question. Why does anything at all matter? Why does anything care about anything at all? Why don’t I want my dog to die? Obviously, when I’m actually dead, I won’t want anything at all. But there is no reason I cannot have preferences now regarding events that will occur after I am dead. And I do.
So it’s just après nous le déluge?
Dude, if you are preaching Might Makes Right you don’t have to bring up nonsense like “standing to object”.
Anything that can replace us will get to decide if the fact that it has done so is “good”. Our arguments will have failed to convince the universe, and we will be gone. Physics is a garbage arbitrator, but from its decision there can be no appeal.
Arguments made by humans can effect other humans, and from that effect their actins, and from that effect the universe.
In this case, the argument is about whether humans should resist or acquiesce to their own replacement. I take Dagn’s “good” to indicate support for the latter option.
I mean, he can chime in, but I think he is looking at it from the perspective of a “thing that has happened”. We don’t have standing to object because we are gone.
I doubt he thinks there is a duty to roll over. (Don’t want to put words in your mouth tho, man. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here.) The vibe I get from his argument is that, once we are gone, who cares what we think?
Yeah, well, the Deep Ones already “came along” :-/
Thankfully aside from military radar, which is highly directional and sporadic, the rest is lost in the background noise after a few dozen lightyears.