As other commenters have suggested, what is moral is not reducible to what is natural. This assumption, which underlies the entire post, is left totally un-addressed. I understand that genetic fitness is relevant to morality because people must endure, but this doesn’t seem to demand that the extent of morals be fitness. I would love a post that explains morality as inherently and solely about fitness.
This post flies from one topic to another very quickly, and I can’t understand all the connections between topics. Why is the human designer of transhumanity suddenly free to choose a new moral chassis for his creation, and why should he care about the moral success of the transhumans? Shouldn’t he create a transhumanity that maximizes his own fitness?
More broadly, are we talking about real transhumans or a human-designed strong AI?
As other commenters have suggested, what is moral is not reducible to what is natural. This assumption, which underlies the entire post, is left totally un-addressed.
You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. The point of the post is that there is a parameter which goal-optimization provides a setting for, but which also has moral implications.
If I believed that what was natural was moral, there would be no issue. You would simply set that parameter in a way that is best for goal-seeking, and be done with it.
Why is the human designer of transhumanity suddenly free to choose a new moral chassis for his creation, and why should he care about the moral success of the transhumans? Shouldn’t he create a transhumanity that maximizes his own fitness?
Now you’re the one saying that what is natural is moral. See, as I said, that’s what the post is about. If what is natural is moral, then your comment would be the obvious conclusion.
As other commenters have suggested, what is moral is not reducible to what is natural. This assumption, which underlies the entire post, is left totally un-addressed. I understand that genetic fitness is relevant to morality because people must endure, but this doesn’t seem to demand that the extent of morals be fitness. I would love a post that explains morality as inherently and solely about fitness.
This post flies from one topic to another very quickly, and I can’t understand all the connections between topics. Why is the human designer of transhumanity suddenly free to choose a new moral chassis for his creation, and why should he care about the moral success of the transhumans? Shouldn’t he create a transhumanity that maximizes his own fitness?
More broadly, are we talking about real transhumans or a human-designed strong AI?
You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. The point of the post is that there is a parameter which goal-optimization provides a setting for, but which also has moral implications.
If I believed that what was natural was moral, there would be no issue. You would simply set that parameter in a way that is best for goal-seeking, and be done with it.
Now you’re the one saying that what is natural is moral. See, as I said, that’s what the post is about. If what is natural is moral, then your comment would be the obvious conclusion.