Imagine, humans plumbing this deep in the concept space of rationality only to create a cause that would make it so that no human need ever think that hard again. Mankind’s greatest mental achievement—never to be replicated again, by any human.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Yes. those of us here in this particular online community enjoy thinking hard on tricky, dangerous subjects. There are also online communities of people who enjoy receiving painful electric shocks, or being mechanically immobilized for extended periods of time, or getting eaten alive. The vast majority of such humans, on the other hand, avoid such activities to the fullest extent that they are able.
I look forward to a world in which the task of designing a friendly AI with the resources we have today is regarded as something like the achievements of Yogendra Singh Yadav, a world with challenges as far beyond our own understanding as public-key encryption is beyond cave paintings.
I believe that in one infamous case in Germany, one such person arranged to be killed and eaten by a cannibal, and this actually occurred—so at least a few of these people are truly dedicated.
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out (and they seem like they’re most heavily represented in the furry community) the fetish does exist.
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out
Wusses. :P
If they sign up for cryonics they may not even die from the process, with a suitable (“Not the brain, everything but the brain!”) compromise.
I wonder if it is legal to have a will (and or waiver when terminally ill) whereby you have your head frozen but your body is to be prepared as a feast for your closest friends. Kind of like a “do not resuscitate” only an emphasis on recycling.
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).
Other classes of objection do apply, though—having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.
What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk?
It seems to depend on just how hungry you are! You would have to be extremely hungry (in the ‘starvation considerations’ sense) before it became worthwhile to, say, eat human brains. That is just asking for trouble.
I don’t think our society currently has or is capable of implementing a definition of consent strong enough for being cannibalized (or other forms of suicide). I wouldn’t consider anyone to have consented to die pointlessly unless they not only expressed their consent in writing, but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.
“but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.”
Having been on antidepressants for a year, I’d point out I’d be significantly more inclined to let someone cannibalize me if I was on them. Neurochemistry is fickle and individual, and those things do not always do what it says on the label...
Assisted suicide clinics exist legally in Switzerland, and they require large amounts of proof that wanting to die is sane under the circumstances (usually a sharp decrease in quality of life because of some chronic injury or illness, with no cure and that is slated to get worse over time). I’m pretty sure they don’t accept people suffering from ennui.
My point being, I think a strong enough version of consent already exists and is in use.
I’m sorry to be confusing; I see cannibalism as orthogonal to death; one can amputate one’s own leg and feed it to one’s friends, or one can die of natural causes and permit others to consume the remains. In the grandparent, I wasn’t considering dying being a part of the process of cannibalism.
As to dying for the purpose of being consumed, I don’t think sane humans can consent to that, but other intelligences could, as long as they felt that the cost of dying was not high (i.e., they are confident that their goals will be accomplished regardless of their death). This is unlikely, but at least possible in my conception.
It would seem you parsed my comment incorrectly. Don’t presume.
By logical deduction there are only people who enjoy being partially cannibalised and possibly plan to be fully cannibalised in the future. Not anyone who has as yet been eaten alive already and enjoyed it. The notion of enjoying partial cannibalism begets a pun (that I noticed while typing, so acknowledge parenthetically.)
If we’re going to be logically examining at the finer points of cannibalism, I’d like to point out that at least in principle someone might have been fully swallowed, and thus, by common usage, eaten, while retaining the ability to enjoy things, so long as their brain hadn’t been digested yet; which is not to say that such a person would be in any condition to participate in online discussions.
Have you read Eliezer’s short fiction “Three Worlds Collide” it isn’t an example of people enjoying being eaten but the ‘Babyeater’ species has brains of crystal that take on the order of a month to be digested, during most of which period they are conscious.
Before the arrival of the superhappies, my preferred strategy would have been to explain to the babyeaters that we had made some initial experiments in baby-eating but been blinded to the underlying goodness of the act for reasons of economic expediency. I would then demand that the babyeaters—all of them, on all their ships and worlds—hand over all the children from the current generation who would otherwise have been eaten, so that all of us humans could figure out how to do it properly as soon as possible. If they balk at the logistics of such a sudden, massive tributary payment, I would point out the horrible possibility that entire worlds—billions of sapients—might otherwise carry on for years in ignorance of the proper practice of baby-eating; if that doesn’t work, I’ll politely remind them that we’ve got overwhelming military superiority and as such they are in no position to dictate terms. Nobody starves, because baby-eating has become metabolically redundant, and the children thus abducted are raised in a non-baby-eating culture. Upon returning, they could convince their parents—by sheer weight of numbers—that this whole baby-eating thing was just an honest mistake.
Once the superhappies show up, that plan goes out the window. Since we have, in any sane game-theoretical sense, established peaceful relations with the babyeaters, shared most of our military secrets with them in fact, an attack on them could be interpreted as an attack on us, and should be discouraged accordingly. Anyone with a competent lawyer would know better than to identify themselves as an authorized representative of all of Humanity, and given a moments’ consideration, remember how people have responded to “feelings greater than love” in the past.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Yes. those of us here in this particular online community enjoy thinking hard on tricky, dangerous subjects. There are also online communities of people who enjoy receiving painful electric shocks, or being mechanically immobilized for extended periods of time, or getting eaten alive. The vast majority of such humans, on the other hand, avoid such activities to the fullest extent that they are able.
I look forward to a world in which the task of designing a friendly AI with the resources we have today is regarded as something like the achievements of Yogendra Singh Yadav, a world with challenges as far beyond our own understanding as public-key encryption is beyond cave paintings.
Really? They must only be half hearted about it (so to speak).
I believe that in one infamous case in Germany, one such person arranged to be killed and eaten by a cannibal, and this actually occurred—so at least a few of these people are truly dedicated.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
I assume you mean eaten and killed! ;)
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out (and they seem like they’re most heavily represented in the furry community) the fetish does exist.
Wusses. :P
If they sign up for cryonics they may not even die from the process, with a suitable (“Not the brain, everything but the brain!”) compromise.
I wonder if it is legal to have a will (and or waiver when terminally ill) whereby you have your head frozen but your body is to be prepared as a feast for your closest friends. Kind of like a “do not resuscitate” only an emphasis on recycling.
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).
Other classes of objection do apply, though—having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.
It seems to depend on just how hungry you are! You would have to be extremely hungry (in the ‘starvation considerations’ sense) before it became worthwhile to, say, eat human brains. That is just asking for trouble.
I can’t think of a good ethical reason to object to consensual (for strong definitions of the word consensual) cannibalism.
On the other hand, while I eat fish and foul, I don’t eat mammals, and ethical objections make up a portion of my reasons.
I don’t think our society currently has or is capable of implementing a definition of consent strong enough for being cannibalized (or other forms of suicide). I wouldn’t consider anyone to have consented to die pointlessly unless they not only expressed their consent in writing, but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.
“but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.”
Having been on antidepressants for a year, I’d point out I’d be significantly more inclined to let someone cannibalize me if I was on them. Neurochemistry is fickle and individual, and those things do not always do what it says on the label...
Assisted suicide clinics exist legally in Switzerland, and they require large amounts of proof that wanting to die is sane under the circumstances (usually a sharp decrease in quality of life because of some chronic injury or illness, with no cure and that is slated to get worse over time). I’m pretty sure they don’t accept people suffering from ennui.
My point being, I think a strong enough version of consent already exists and is in use.
I’m sorry to be confusing; I see cannibalism as orthogonal to death; one can amputate one’s own leg and feed it to one’s friends, or one can die of natural causes and permit others to consume the remains. In the grandparent, I wasn’t considering dying being a part of the process of cannibalism.
As to dying for the purpose of being consumed, I don’t think sane humans can consent to that, but other intelligences could, as long as they felt that the cost of dying was not high (i.e., they are confident that their goals will be accomplished regardless of their death). This is unlikely, but at least possible in my conception.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article801599.ece
That is an entirely understandable mistake, but please do your research next time.
It would seem you parsed my comment incorrectly. Don’t presume.
By logical deduction there are only people who enjoy being partially cannibalised and possibly plan to be fully cannibalised in the future. Not anyone who has as yet been eaten alive already and enjoyed it. The notion of enjoying partial cannibalism begets a pun (that I noticed while typing, so acknowledge parenthetically.)
I apologize for the presumption.
If we’re going to be logically examining at the finer points of cannibalism, I’d like to point out that at least in principle someone might have been fully swallowed, and thus, by common usage, eaten, while retaining the ability to enjoy things, so long as their brain hadn’t been digested yet; which is not to say that such a person would be in any condition to participate in online discussions.
Full agreement. :)
Have you read Eliezer’s short fiction “Three Worlds Collide” it isn’t an example of people enjoying being eaten but the ‘Babyeater’ species has brains of crystal that take on the order of a month to be digested, during most of which period they are conscious.
I have.
Before the arrival of the superhappies, my preferred strategy would have been to explain to the babyeaters that we had made some initial experiments in baby-eating but been blinded to the underlying goodness of the act for reasons of economic expediency. I would then demand that the babyeaters—all of them, on all their ships and worlds—hand over all the children from the current generation who would otherwise have been eaten, so that all of us humans could figure out how to do it properly as soon as possible. If they balk at the logistics of such a sudden, massive tributary payment, I would point out the horrible possibility that entire worlds—billions of sapients—might otherwise carry on for years in ignorance of the proper practice of baby-eating; if that doesn’t work, I’ll politely remind them that we’ve got overwhelming military superiority and as such they are in no position to dictate terms. Nobody starves, because baby-eating has become metabolically redundant, and the children thus abducted are raised in a non-baby-eating culture. Upon returning, they could convince their parents—by sheer weight of numbers—that this whole baby-eating thing was just an honest mistake.
Once the superhappies show up, that plan goes out the window. Since we have, in any sane game-theoretical sense, established peaceful relations with the babyeaters, shared most of our military secrets with them in fact, an attack on them could be interpreted as an attack on us, and should be discouraged accordingly. Anyone with a competent lawyer would know better than to identify themselves as an authorized representative of all of Humanity, and given a moments’ consideration, remember how people have responded to “feelings greater than love” in the past.