[RD] Pessimism about Mars

[Valka D'Ur]

YECs use hydrocarbons here on Earth as well. I don't know of any principle essential to modern technology that they reject.

Isn't it hypocritical to make use of things your worldview rejects? A worldview, I will add, that some of these people actively preach and try to force it to be taught in schools.

I don't think that people will ever buy into VR en masse, no matter how good it becomes. Even if they do, they won't be reproducing (as children require a strong investment in meatworld that even modern computer addicts no longer have).

If someone offered to equip my apartment with holoemitters, I'd take it. But then I'm more than tired of beige walls I'm not allowed to paint, and the view of a cement wall and parking lot outside my living room window. I'm over the age of reproduction, so even if I'd ever wanted kids, they're not an option.

Just think... I could have a virtual Antarctica for all my penguins!

 

[Mouthwash]

Isn't it hypocritical to make use of things your worldview rejects? A worldview, I will add, that some of these people actively preach and try to force it to be taught in schools.

I don't think they reject the existence of hydrocarbons.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't think they reject the existence of hydrocarbons.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think they reject the existence of hydrocarbons.

There's a reason why gas and oil are referred to as "fossil fuels." 6000 years is not enough time for them to form, so how could these people be driving vehicles or heating their homes (if they use natural gas)?

 

[Lexicus]

There's a reason why gas and oil are referred to as "fossil fuels." 6000 years is not enough time for them to form, so how could these people be driving vehicles or heating their homes (if they use natural gas)?

The oil was created by God 6,000 years ago

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't think that people will ever buy into VR en masse, no matter how good it becomes. Even if they do, they won't be reproducing (as children require a strong investment in meatworld that even modern computer addicts no longer have).

I'm talking about more advanced forms of entertainment than just VR. Something like holodecs or the Matrix is what I'm referring too.

The oil was created by God 6,000 years ago

Then put in the ground by the devil to fool us.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm talking about more advanced forms of entertainment than just VR. Something like holodecs or the Matrix is what I'm referring too.


Then put in the ground by the devil to fool us.

Notably, if sentience is at the level of something like the matrix you could in principle live + have children without human bodies. It'd be silly to leave children as the same large investment at that point. Completely foreign to our conception right now, but not necessarily worse.

 

[Lexicus]

Then put in the ground by the devil to fool us.

No, put in the ground by God so that humans could dig it up at great expense, and then burn it to emit freedom molecules into the atmosphere

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm talking about more advanced forms of entertainment than just VR. Something like holodecs or the Matrix is what I'm referring too.

I don't think that will happen, either. 'Mind uploading' is not going to be possible without a singularity-style superintelligence; maybe not even then. Also, virtual reality of any sort doesn't seem to mesh well with our species. Look at the unpopularity of existing VR technology, or the tremendous psychological harm constant use of screens is already causing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

'Mind uploading' is not going to be possible without a singularity-style superintelligence; maybe not even then.

Do you know something the rest of humanity doesn't? If not, you can't credibly make such assertions right now. We have yet to fully understand how "thinking" works.

The types of setups he's referring to wouldn't put people in front of screens so much as it would literally put them in different perceived realities. Computer screens cause us physical problems because humans aren't evolved to adapt for that, but this is a limitation that just doesn't exist in the hypothetical scenario.

Whether we ever attain that tech is another matter (and this discussion is moot w/o it), but if you hold that we have it available the current rejections of its utility don't make sense.

 

[Mouthwash]

Do you know something the rest of humanity doesn't? If not, you can't credibly make such assertions right now. We have yet to fully understand how "thinking" works.

Biological thinking is infinitely more complex than computer thinking. It's like comparing a blueprint for a building to a DNA code - it doesn't even describe how we think, only the fractal pattern that allows for it.

Unless you believe that technology will keep accelerating forever (which I doubt), I can't imagine the two being merged.

The types of setups he's referring to wouldn't put people in front of screens so much as it would literally put them in different perceived realities. Computer screens cause us physical problems because humans aren't evolved to adapt for that, but this is a limitation that just doesn't exist in the hypothetical scenario.

Computer screens are only one way they can screw with us. Humans will never become sheep in sensory cages; some facet of our natures will always revolt against it (see, for instance, how the virtualization of news and media leads to greater engagement in politics and the outside world, even in unhealthy ways).

 

[yung.carl.jung]

sometimes I think about our future and then I get this defeatist though that really it's much better if our species just dies here and never gets to colonize the milky way. if I think about the cruel things we inflict on sentient life on our planet I don't even want to consider the possible things that humans could do to things that aren't terrestrial (assuming other lifeforms even exist). hopefully a different, a better species will.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Even if we assume life is common, dead planets will outnumber living ones by a huge margin. I don't see any ethical issues with mining dead rocks or terraforming them.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Even if we assume life is common, dead planets will outnumber living ones by a huge margin. I don't see any ethical issues with mining dead rocks or terraforming them.

me neither, my statement was really explicitly about how humans interact with different species (both aliens and terrestrial creatures). one other interesting factor to consider is that suffering on earth grows in proportion to population size (if you want accept the premise that life is inherently suffering), which would mean that as humans spread (if, and only if, we keep up our horrid treatment of other lifeforms like cattle and so on) then suffering will spread, too, in the same proportion. lots of "ifs", I know, but moral arguments always, always hinge on "ifs".

it's an interesting ethical question: is it morally justified to put creatures into existance which will experience nothing more than suffering, does their "right" to be alive outweigh the cons of constant suffering, and is it in any way better to have less conscious creatures suffering?

if you extend this argument you can, of course, also apply it to human life, but that never leads to good discussion so we'll keep with the cattle example. more life means more suffering. some beings are put into existance only for our benefit, and have to suffer their entire life. does more suffering animals automatically equal more bad, or is this a fallacy, like saying one human life is necessarily worth more than 2 human lifes?

 

[El_Machinae]

One advantage of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that I can recycle old posts.

... I think there's still an ethical discussion to be had. If the 'greening' of the planets is done with a more humane ecosystem than our current one, then that should be pursued. The average of the 'sentient experience' should be improved over time. So, rolling hills of vegetation would not only be beautiful but also result in a pain-free environment. Beauty+no suffering= net good. Wild ecosystems full of nature "red in tooth and claw" would be less good, merely due to the inclusion of suffering.

Since we are designing those ecosystems, we have a moral obligation to think of such things. Populating the galaxy with subpar human lives just isn't ... wise. But, populating the galaxy with lives that are as-good-or-better than ours? Seems more acceptable.

Wait, do I understand this right? Are you saying we should specifically select from Earth's creatures only those that cause no suffering for other creatures for transport to another planet? No carinvores? Because the salmon that the bear eats suffers when the bear eats him?

Sure, why not consider it? I'd even go one step further. Why bring the deer that will die a long death of starvation or aging-related degeneration? I don't see why pain 'should' be an export of Terra. I can imagine that we find it 'must' be, but I seriously doubt that's true.

 

[Mouthwash]

An ecosystem without carnivores would produce tremendous suffering, being constantly just under the Malthusian threshold for collapse. Even if it didn't start out that way, adaptation to a predator-free environment would be rapid.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

me neither

I know, my comment was a jump on a tangent, not a refutation of anything you said.

I don't really buy that all life is suffering so we can't spread it but I'm too tired to argue it right now.

 

[El_Machinae]

An ecosystem without carnivores would produce tremendous suffering, being constantly just under the Malthusian threshold for collapse. Even if it didn't start out that way, adaptation to a predator-free environment would be rapid.

Yes, a poorly designed ecosystem without predators would cause suffering.
There's still the sum of the suffering to consider. We literally have the opportunity to create a future with a billion times more suffering than currently exists. It inspires second thoughts.

 

[Mouthwash]

A meaningless statement. That suffering rises in proportion to rising happiness and health.

 

[El_Machinae]

A meaningless statement. That suffering rises in proportion to rising happiness and health.

It's not meaningless.
Turning a barren world into a beautiful forested wilderness has no suffering. As soon as you introduce a population of mice, you've introduced suffering. As you've noted, a poorly designed ecosystem will result in much more suffering than a well-designed one. But remember what the current suffering is when the world was still barren: it's zero.

You might be suffering some type of naturalistic fallacy. That there's a spread of 'normal' under which it's okay to create new life. That's all it is, an appeal to a naturalistic heuristic.