So I was reading a book in the Ender’s Game series, and at one point it talks about the idea of sacrificing a human colony for the sake of another species. It got me thinking about the following question. Is it rational to protect 20 “piggies” (which are morally equivalent to humans) and sacrifice 100 humans if the 20 piggies constitute 100% of their species’ population and the humans represent a very very small fraction of the human race. At first, it seemed obvious that it’s right to save the “piggies,” but now I’m not so sure. Having tried to think of why saving them is right (for a few minutes), all I came up with was that diversifying investments in intelligent life makes intelligent life safer from extinction. But is diversity of life inherently valuable? What makes a future with “piggies” and humans better than one with just one or the other?
While writing this, I noticed one other reason: the valuable information that the “piggies” have. If this is eliminated, is it still worth saving them? And how many human lives can the “good of diversity” and the “loss of information” overcome? These are basically rhetorical questions (i.e. I’m not looking for answers like “53,243 humans per ‘piggy’”), so I’m really just looking for your thoughts on this issue.
Is it rational to protect 20 “piggies”...and sacrifice 100 humans
Depends on your goal… If it is the survival of the human colony, then no. If it is the survival of the human race an the piggies hold a key to it, then yes (they do not, in this story). If it is the survival of the pequenino race, then yes. It does not make sense to ask which of the goals is rational, unless you can measure them against something else.
Right. Let’s say that you just value “intelligent life,” though, rather than the humans or pequeninos in particular. Say you’re the hive queen. A piggy is equal to a human and the human race is equal to a human race.
(I worry that I’m still missing the point and the question is moot without first resolving whether you value “diversity” in it’s own right or not, and that such valuing is a preference independent of rational decision making. Still, I feel as if some preferences can be irrational.)
So I was reading a book in the Ender’s Game series, and at one point it talks about the idea of sacrificing a human colony for the sake of another species. It got me thinking about the following question. Is it rational to protect 20 “piggies” (which are morally equivalent to humans) and sacrifice 100 humans if the 20 piggies constitute 100% of their species’ population and the humans represent a very very small fraction of the human race. At first, it seemed obvious that it’s right to save the “piggies,” but now I’m not so sure. Having tried to think of why saving them is right (for a few minutes), all I came up with was that diversifying investments in intelligent life makes intelligent life safer from extinction. But is diversity of life inherently valuable? What makes a future with “piggies” and humans better than one with just one or the other?
While writing this, I noticed one other reason: the valuable information that the “piggies” have. If this is eliminated, is it still worth saving them? And how many human lives can the “good of diversity” and the “loss of information” overcome? These are basically rhetorical questions (i.e. I’m not looking for answers like “53,243 humans per ‘piggy’”), so I’m really just looking for your thoughts on this issue.
Depends on your goal… If it is the survival of the human colony, then no. If it is the survival of the human race an the piggies hold a key to it, then yes (they do not, in this story). If it is the survival of the pequenino race, then yes. It does not make sense to ask which of the goals is rational, unless you can measure them against something else.
Right. Let’s say that you just value “intelligent life,” though, rather than the humans or pequeninos in particular. Say you’re the hive queen. A piggy is equal to a human and the human race is equal to a human race.
(I worry that I’m still missing the point and the question is moot without first resolving whether you value “diversity” in it’s own right or not, and that such valuing is a preference independent of rational decision making. Still, I feel as if some preferences can be irrational.)