instead try to support uploading animals into a simulated environment under our control.
But what about those physical ones that will still exist?
we are not obligated to give them pleasure
What about humans? Just trying to know if you hold this because you hold something like a pleasure-pain imparity, or that you think there is something special about humans that makes us obliged to give them pleasure, but not the animals.
Finally on the question of predation, some thoughts on this. I do tend towards allowing it for at least conditional on backup/waiver. My reason is I’m a subjectivist on this, and I don’t too much care whether this extreme sport is done.
Not sure I understand this. Do you mind explaining a bit more?
Well, on the physical animals, well it’s a long, hard process to change values to get it in the overton window, and as the saying goes, in order to take a thousand mile journey, you have to take the first step.
There’s a bad habit of confronting large problems and then trying to discredit solving them because of the things you don’t solve, when it won’t be solved at all by inaction.
My reason for saying that we’re not obligated to give them pleasure is because I don’t agree with the hedonic imperative mentioned, and in general hedonic utilitarianism because I view pleasure/pain as just one part of my morality that isn’t focused on. For much the same reason I also tend to avoid suffering focused ethics, which is focused on preventing disvalue or dolorium primarily. It’s not about the difference between animals and humans.
On the predation thing, I will send you a link to what making or changing the predator-prey relation from a natural to an artificial one that is morally acceptable in my eyes, primarily because of the fact that death isn’t final in a simulation. Here’s the link:
But what about those physical ones that will still exist?
What about humans? Just trying to know if you hold this because you hold something like a pleasure-pain imparity, or that you think there is something special about humans that makes us obliged to give them pleasure, but not the animals.
Not sure I understand this. Do you mind explaining a bit more?
Well, on the physical animals, well it’s a long, hard process to change values to get it in the overton window, and as the saying goes, in order to take a thousand mile journey, you have to take the first step.
There’s a bad habit of confronting large problems and then trying to discredit solving them because of the things you don’t solve, when it won’t be solved at all by inaction.
My reason for saying that we’re not obligated to give them pleasure is because I don’t agree with the hedonic imperative mentioned, and in general hedonic utilitarianism because I view pleasure/pain as just one part of my morality that isn’t focused on. For much the same reason I also tend to avoid suffering focused ethics, which is focused on preventing disvalue or dolorium primarily. It’s not about the difference between animals and humans.
On the predation thing, I will send you a link to what making or changing the predator-prey relation from a natural to an artificial one that is morally acceptable in my eyes, primarily because of the fact that death isn’t final in a simulation. Here’s the link:
https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/460328b7114f4
Sorry for taking so long to make this comment.