4 ms·

Then again perhaps giving them enhanced cognitive capabilities would only serve to make existence worse for them? In which case, giving them enhanced cognitive

Then again perhaps giving them enhanced cognitive capabilities would only serve to make existence worse for them? In which case, giving them enhanced cognitive capabilities would be morally worse than leaving them as is.

wizofaus 3y ago
They're already considered to be gloomy...
ryanschneider 3y ago
I had a short story idea where explorers come across a planet full of ancient ruins and gentle unintelligent beasts. It turns out that to survive the great filter the sentient life on the planet deprogrammed themselves of all sentience and now the explorers need to decide if they should use the same tech on their own civilization or not. Kind of your moral question but in reverse.
- glenstein 3y ago
  That's a fascinating one. May I ask the nature of the great filter in this scenario? I understand the "great filter" can be a variety of different things, such as global warming, discovery and use of nuclear capabilities, or various other existential threats, and different "filters" could require different workarounds.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Blindsight, by Peter Watts (free to read), is a very interesting read if that's your cup of tea (give it until they reach Big Ben). The book explore how counciousness can present itself. I don't want to spoil it - give it a read!
rektide 3y ago
Having to grapple with existential questions, with meaningfulness has it's downsides but being a meaningless creature seems unideal. To me. Becoming sentient on an already developed industrialized world seems like it would be awful, though . I like to think there are many paths where a species could be welcomed & supported well, but it's hard to imagine that happening on our present earth.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  As humans we probably overestimate our level of sentience, ability to understand meaning, and place in the food chain. We should be careful in case someone decides to try to uplift us.
billiam 3y ago
That's what God thought too. Didn't stop Her.
- kadoban 3y ago
  God _is_ a bit of an asshole though, as evidenced by :waves vaguely at all of Creation: So that may not be an argument in favor of it being the moral choice.
  - b800h 3y ago
    Nope! Plenty of atheists roll out this line; superficially it seems true, so it's a powerful rhetorical device. A lot of discussion on the problem of evil is quite obscure but worth reading if you're in any doubt about all of creation being a fundamentally excellent thing.
glenstein 3y ago
That's an interesting idea for a couple of reasons. One, it basically co-signs the idea that we should consider intervening if we believe it will make things "better" in some sense for them. Which is a big thing to agree to and carries big implications. It would imply that we actually should intervene in cases where we judge certain creatures to have "too much" cognitive capability for their own good. You could, for instance, consider alewives to be a canddidate, as they face impossibly long odds of living and high odds of being eaten alive, which probably sucks. As it happens, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of intervening to help animals in more cases than we currently do, and if I had to guess what one belief we have now that will be regarded as appalling by some future generation, I think this (letting nature run its course when it leads to animals suffering) could be one of them.

wizofaus 3y ago

They're already considered to be gloomy...

ryanschneider 3y ago

I had a short story idea where explorers come across a planet full of ancient ruins and gentle unintelligent beasts. It turns out that to survive the great filter the sentient life on the planet deprogrammed themselves of all sentience and now the explorers need to decide if they should use the same tech on their own civilization or not. Kind of your moral question but in reverse.

glenstein 3y ago
That's a fascinating one. May I ask the nature of the great filter in this scenario? I understand the "great filter" can be a variety of different things, such as global warming, discovery and use of nuclear capabilities, or various other existential threats, and different "filters" could require different workarounds.
dmbche 3y ago
Blindsight, by Peter Watts (free to read), is a very interesting read if that's your cup of tea (give it until they reach Big Ben). The book explore how counciousness can present itself. I don't want to spoil it - give it a read!

rektide 3y ago

Having to grapple with existential questions, with meaningfulness has it's downsides but being a meaningless creature seems unideal. To me. Becoming sentient on an already developed industrialized world seems like it would be awful, though . I like to think there are many paths where a species could be welcomed & supported well, but it's hard to imagine that happening on our present earth.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
As humans we probably overestimate our level of sentience, ability to understand meaning, and place in the food chain. We should be careful in case someone decides to try to uplift us.

billiam 3y ago

That's what God thought too. Didn't stop Her.

kadoban 3y ago
God _is_ a bit of an asshole though, as evidenced by :waves vaguely at all of Creation: So that may not be an argument in favor of it being the moral choice.
- b800h 3y ago
  Nope! Plenty of atheists roll out this line; superficially it seems true, so it's a powerful rhetorical device. A lot of discussion on the problem of evil is quite obscure but worth reading if you're in any doubt about all of creation being a fundamentally excellent thing.

glenstein 3y ago

That's an interesting idea for a couple of reasons. One, it basically co-signs the idea that we should consider intervening if we believe it will make things "better" in some sense for them. Which is a big thing to agree to and carries big implications. It would imply that we actually should intervene in cases where we judge certain creatures to have "too much" cognitive capability for their own good. You could, for instance, consider alewives to be a canddidate, as they face impossibly long odds of living and high odds of being eaten alive, which probably sucks. As it happens, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of intervening to help animals in more cases than we currently do, and if I had to guess what one belief we have now that will be regarded as appalling by some future generation, I think this (letting nature run its course when it leads to animals suffering) could be one of them.