I’d be interested in seeing moral trade feature explicitly in things like this, for example there are many people who claim to have “create a hedonium shockwave” or “minimize suffering” as their goal rather than the complex human value thing, and demonstrating that it’s possible (and why it’s good) to share the future seems important.
I also know a good number of people from subcultures where nature is the foundational moral value, a few from ones where family structures are core (who’d likely be horrified by altering them at will), and some from the psychonaut space where mindstates and exploring them is the primary focus. I’d also guess than people for whom religions are central would find the idea of forked selves committing things they consider sins breaks this utopia for them. These groups seem to have genuine value differences, and would not be okay with a future which does not carve out a space for them. “Adventure” and a bunch of specifics here points at a very wide region of funspace, but one centered around our culture to some extent.
There’s some rich territory in the direction of people who want reality to be different in reasonable ways coming together to work out what to do. The suffering reduction vs nature preservation bundle seems the largest, but there’s also the complex value vs raw qualia maximization. Actually, this kinda fits into a 2x2?
Moral plurality is a moral necessity, and signalling it clearly seems crucial, since we’d be taking everyone else along for the ride.
Edit: This is touched on by characters exchanging values, and that seems very good.
If I was to impose this utopia in everyone, without negotiating with their values, it would go something like: everyone has the right to not have forks, everyone has the right to have forks, everyone has the eight to have their forks either “sin” or be sinless. And the Powers would act against groups that tried to make conditions on forks as conditions of belonging (they’d also discourage forks from acting together; if you create forks to sock-puppet how great you are, they will feel free to let that information leak).
From their perspective, this allows those people to consciously and fully knowledgeably live a sinless life, rather than being compelled to merely by social pressure.
Now, there’s going to be value negotiations, but this system has already done quite a bit to accommodate multiple values.
Thank you, I enjoyed this.
I’d be interested in seeing moral trade feature explicitly in things like this, for example there are many people who claim to have “create a hedonium shockwave” or “minimize suffering” as their goal rather than the complex human value thing, and demonstrating that it’s possible (and why it’s good) to share the future seems important.
Hum, I shall ponder that. It’s true that multiple culture’s could allow that kind of idea...
I also know a good number of people from subcultures where nature is the foundational moral value, a few from ones where family structures are core (who’d likely be horrified by altering them at will), and some from the psychonaut space where mindstates and exploring them is the primary focus. I’d also guess than people for whom religions are central would find the idea of forked selves committing things they consider sins breaks this utopia for them. These groups seem to have genuine value differences, and would not be okay with a future which does not carve out a space for them. “Adventure” and a bunch of specifics here points at a very wide region of funspace, but one centered around our culture to some extent.
There’s some rich territory in the direction of people who want reality to be different in reasonable ways coming together to work out what to do. The suffering reduction vs nature preservation bundle seems the largest, but there’s also the complex value vs raw qualia maximization. Actually, this kinda fits into a 2x2?
Moral plurality is a moral necessity, and signalling it clearly seems crucial, since we’d be taking everyone else along for the ride.
Edit: This is touched on by characters exchanging values, and that seems very good.
If I was to impose this utopia in everyone, without negotiating with their values, it would go something like: everyone has the right to not have forks, everyone has the right to have forks, everyone has the eight to have their forks either “sin” or be sinless. And the Powers would act against groups that tried to make conditions on forks as conditions of belonging (they’d also discourage forks from acting together; if you create forks to sock-puppet how great you are, they will feel free to let that information leak).
From their perspective, this allows those people to consciously and fully knowledgeably live a sinless life, rather than being compelled to merely by social pressure.
Now, there’s going to be value negotiations, but this system has already done quite a bit to accommodate multiple values.