Bringing about the end of the existing world as predicted by their philosophy. Depending on context this might imply anything from a Singularity to a Last Judgment to a communist utopia.
Philosophers who decide my life is not worth living aren’t worth having around.
Edit: On the other hand I could think for a minute and throw out the naive symmetry-following and come up with a real solution that doesn’t involve violence.
I turn to Mad Science. Throwing all ethical concerns through the window, I become only interested in achievement for the sake of achievement. I build Wonders and forget myself in them. Starting with the development of combustible lemons.
I don’t think I can argue why you should in any useful fashion (beyond some sort of prisoner’s dilemma sort of situation) but this isn’t that relevant since given these and other comments by Armok, I suspect that they do care.
I care about the happiness of others. I care about their growth, them having complex fun, and all the myriad other human values. However, in so far this overlaps with their values it is purely incidental. If I encounter a papercliper, I will give it complex fun and happiness and growth as a person, but no paperclips.
This sounds to me like one has been almost spoiled by the possibility of such incredibly large amounts of complex fun that more down-to-earth mundane levels look like they are close to zero.
Or maybe you have never suffered like many many in this world do an cannot imagine it. I’ve had more suffering than there has been fun in all of human history combined, and there are plenty of people who have it vastly worse than me. Wouldn’t be all that surprised it it’s a majority of humans. And I also wouldn’t be surprised if the average insect, obviously not capable of having any fun, produced a similar amount of suffering per hour being eaten from the inside out...
I’ve had more suffering than there has been fun in all of human history combined
So how would you know this?
Incidentally, most of this reply isn’t that relevant for another reason: The OP and discussion isn’t about the exact status quo. It doesn’t for example rule out weaker forms of transhumanism which minimize suffering.
In this scenario I turn omnicidal. Human lives without hope in general are not worth living.
I worry about anyone whose worldview prefers the immanentization of their particular eschaton, followed immediately by global human extermination.
I’m sorry, what does this mean?
Bringing about the end of the existing world as predicted by their philosophy. Depending on context this might imply anything from a Singularity to a Last Judgment to a communist utopia.
Understandable, maybe even justified, but I still do and think I am right in doing so.
Then I counter by turning philosocidal.
Philosophers who decide my life is not worth living aren’t worth having around.
Edit: On the other hand I could think for a minute and throw out the naive symmetry-following and come up with a real solution that doesn’t involve violence.
“Omnicide” Includes me as well. And every animal, blade of grass, every single last living cell.
I turn to Mad Science. Throwing all ethical concerns through the window, I become only interested in achievement for the sake of achievement. I build Wonders and forget myself in them. Starting with the development of combustible lemons.
And if the other humans disagree with what you intend to do with them?
Kill them anyway?
Why? If they assert that despite your concerns they prefer existence to non-existence, why do you persist? Do you think that you can predict from your own preferences what the true preference is of others?
Why should I care about the preferences of others?
I don’t think I can argue why you should in any useful fashion (beyond some sort of prisoner’s dilemma sort of situation) but this isn’t that relevant since given these and other comments by Armok, I suspect that they do care.
Fair enough.
I care about the happiness of others. I care about their growth, them having complex fun, and all the myriad other human values. However, in so far this overlaps with their values it is purely incidental. If I encounter a papercliper, I will give it complex fun and happiness and growth as a person, but no paperclips.
Ok. So which of these values suggests that omnicide is the best option if one doesn’t have a Singularity?
The ones that value pain, death and futility negatively.
And those outweigh complex fun and the other human values?
In the scenario we talking about there would be almost zero of those things, outweighed by the suffering by many order of magnitude.
This sounds to me like one has been almost spoiled by the possibility of such incredibly large amounts of complex fun that more down-to-earth mundane levels look like they are close to zero.
Or maybe you have never suffered like many many in this world do an cannot imagine it. I’ve had more suffering than there has been fun in all of human history combined, and there are plenty of people who have it vastly worse than me. Wouldn’t be all that surprised it it’s a majority of humans. And I also wouldn’t be surprised if the average insect, obviously not capable of having any fun, produced a similar amount of suffering per hour being eaten from the inside out...
So how would you know this?
Incidentally, most of this reply isn’t that relevant for another reason: The OP and discussion isn’t about the exact status quo. It doesn’t for example rule out weaker forms of transhumanism which minimize suffering.