This mostly sounds like loss aversion versus current abilities. The proposed temporary states don’t seem objectively that bad! Would Alicorn-by-her-own-strength having to cook as she does now rather than eat at nine star restaurants, or play music on a flute rather than be given access to future, superior instruments, sound so bad?
I can see what you mean by ‘objectively bad’, but don’t see why anyone should care about the concept.
Also, I think that you have too low of expectations for a utopia—both of your sentences were pleas that such a state of being would be acceptable, but I don’t think that’s what we should be going for here. Compromises can be made later if and only if they must.
I’m not that interested in how “objectively bad” eating bugs for fifty years is. (Let alone spending centuries domesticating my own bananas and setting up my own deep sea fishing expeditions.) I don’t think they’re reasonable prerequisites.
I cannot decipher your last sentence; please rephrase.
I cannot decipher your last sentence; please rephrase.
Instead of comparing eating bugs to eating modern food, compare eating modern food to eating futuristic super-perfect food. The difference is roughly comparable but the latter may be more emotionally accurate.
More emotionally accurate how? Is the idea that we get to keep our existing tools and only have to make new ones ourselves? Or that I shouldn’t feel as grossed out by eating bugs as I do so here’s something not-gross to think about?
More the former, at least for those of us from Old Earth for whom losing our standard of living would be traumatic, but also the latter in that eating bugs wouldn’t be gross if you were used to it and also eating actual genetically-uncharted plants that were grown in actual biological dirt might look just as disgusting from a far-future perspective.
This mostly sounds like loss aversion versus current abilities. The proposed temporary states don’t seem objectively that bad! Would Alicorn-by-her-own-strength having to cook as she does now rather than eat at nine star restaurants, or play music on a flute rather than be given access to future, superior instruments, sound so bad?
I can see what you mean by ‘objectively bad’, but don’t see why anyone should care about the concept.
Also, I think that you have too low of expectations for a utopia—both of your sentences were pleas that such a state of being would be acceptable, but I don’t think that’s what we should be going for here. Compromises can be made later if and only if they must.
I’m not that interested in how “objectively bad” eating bugs for fifty years is. (Let alone spending centuries domesticating my own bananas and setting up my own deep sea fishing expeditions.) I don’t think they’re reasonable prerequisites.
I cannot decipher your last sentence; please rephrase.
Instead of comparing eating bugs to eating modern food, compare eating modern food to eating futuristic super-perfect food. The difference is roughly comparable but the latter may be more emotionally accurate.
More emotionally accurate how? Is the idea that we get to keep our existing tools and only have to make new ones ourselves? Or that I shouldn’t feel as grossed out by eating bugs as I do so here’s something not-gross to think about?
More the former, at least for those of us from Old Earth for whom losing our standard of living would be traumatic, but also the latter in that eating bugs wouldn’t be gross if you were used to it and also eating actual genetically-uncharted plants that were grown in actual biological dirt might look just as disgusting from a far-future perspective.