However, a more useful statement would compare democracy and equality to all the other options that require the same computational power or less.
This is definitely true. That said, I actually do have at least two systems that I prefer to democracy that are implementable at current processing power levels (they might have somewhat higher needs than democracy, but nothing huge). Equality probably actually does require a lot of processing power to shift completely. However, it is conceivable that we could benefit from creating additional classes of citizens with widely different rights (currently we have children and the mentally ill in this category), although I have not thought about that too much, so I’m not sure if we actually would or not.
I unpack this statement to mean that, all other circumstances being equal, it’s preferable to accomplish your goals in a way that involves not killing conscious beings.
Sorry, it was probably bad of me to quote without context. What he actually meant (in my interpretation) was that it is clear that it should be illegal to kill adult human beings, which was part of his argument that it should be illegal to kill infants (search it if you want the full context), so it is with this claim that I took exception. Certainly, I would agree that if all else is equal (a premise that is almost never true, unfortunately), it would be better not to kill people than to kill people.
In particular, I think the reason that some view it as possibly okay for parents to kill infants is that the status of infants is close to that of property or pets of their parents. It is here that the analogy breaks down, because our current society does not have adults as pets or property of other adults. However, I think such a situation would be perfectly acceptable—for example, it should be legal for me (in full possession of my faculties, without coercion, etcetera) to sign over to someone else the right to kill me if he or she so chooses. After such a contract is made, I believe it should be completely legal for them to kill me if they wish it. Additionally, we already implicitly provide such rights to any state we enter with some conditions attached (I use a social contract approach here, which is not to indicate I endorse social contracts) - they can kill us if we violently and dangerously resist the police, in some places if we break the law in certain ways, and further the state transfers the right to kill us to private citizens if we attack them and sometimes in other instances. As such, there are indeed many cases when killing people is deemed acceptable and proper, and I think most of these instances are not outrageous.
I’m not sure I’ve read any post-apocalyptic novels where the current level of development was higher than that before the apocalypse, which is what I’m interpreting. I’ve completed what I guess could be called a post-apocalyptic novel, though some realistic-ness was compromised in the name of a more exciting and compelling narrative.
Yep, you’re interpreting that correctly. Mostly the apocalypse is an extremely well justified for a big shake-up of society without massive technological progress. To be honest, I like fantasy better than science fiction in general, since it explores societies more than it does technology, and I think that is much more appealing in a novel. So, I’m trying to sort of get the best of both worlds—a character driven story exploring interesting societal patterns, and a setting that is somewhat familiar to anyone who knows the modern world, as well as makes them think about where we might head. Although I’m not sure to what extent this thoughtful motivation sprung up after I had a story idea I really liked, which is what really triggered novel writing inspiration. We’ll see how it goes anyway, and thanks for the interest!
This is definitely true. That said, I actually do have at least two systems that I prefer to democracy that are implementable at current processing power levels (they might have somewhat higher needs than democracy, but nothing huge). Equality probably actually does require a lot of processing power to shift completely. However, it is conceivable that we could benefit from creating additional classes of citizens with widely different rights (currently we have children and the mentally ill in this category), although I have not thought about that too much, so I’m not sure if we actually would or not.
Sorry, it was probably bad of me to quote without context. What he actually meant (in my interpretation) was that it is clear that it should be illegal to kill adult human beings, which was part of his argument that it should be illegal to kill infants (search it if you want the full context), so it is with this claim that I took exception. Certainly, I would agree that if all else is equal (a premise that is almost never true, unfortunately), it would be better not to kill people than to kill people. In particular, I think the reason that some view it as possibly okay for parents to kill infants is that the status of infants is close to that of property or pets of their parents. It is here that the analogy breaks down, because our current society does not have adults as pets or property of other adults. However, I think such a situation would be perfectly acceptable—for example, it should be legal for me (in full possession of my faculties, without coercion, etcetera) to sign over to someone else the right to kill me if he or she so chooses. After such a contract is made, I believe it should be completely legal for them to kill me if they wish it. Additionally, we already implicitly provide such rights to any state we enter with some conditions attached (I use a social contract approach here, which is not to indicate I endorse social contracts) - they can kill us if we violently and dangerously resist the police, in some places if we break the law in certain ways, and further the state transfers the right to kill us to private citizens if we attack them and sometimes in other instances. As such, there are indeed many cases when killing people is deemed acceptable and proper, and I think most of these instances are not outrageous.
Yep, you’re interpreting that correctly. Mostly the apocalypse is an extremely well justified for a big shake-up of society without massive technological progress. To be honest, I like fantasy better than science fiction in general, since it explores societies more than it does technology, and I think that is much more appealing in a novel. So, I’m trying to sort of get the best of both worlds—a character driven story exploring interesting societal patterns, and a setting that is somewhat familiar to anyone who knows the modern world, as well as makes them think about where we might head. Although I’m not sure to what extent this thoughtful motivation sprung up after I had a story idea I really liked, which is what really triggered novel writing inspiration. We’ll see how it goes anyway, and thanks for the interest!