3 ms·

Yes, strangely, people get emotional about being asked to let their kids die of scarlet fever and other bacterial infections. I’m a birder too, but some new lud

Yes, strangely, people get emotional about being asked to let their kids die of scarlet fever and other bacterial infections. I’m a birder too, but some new luddism isn’t going to save the environment. If we stop where we’re at, we’re stuck burning fossil fuels, stuck with slash-and-burning the Amazon. If you want save to animals, you need better messaging than “maybe cancer isn’t bad.” Look around the world, places with great longevity have lower population growth, not higher. Places with better economies and more technology are also greener. When you say things like “AI is universally bad” you’re making an ethical judgement about a means rather than an end and ruling out many possible good ends. You’ve read Peter Singer, now go read Hans Rosling.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
My message isn't that "cancer isn't bad". It's that medical research into cancer may lead to other outcomes which are definitely not good. Yes, I am making an ethical judgment about the means of AI, because after some analysis I do believe that the negative effects will be far worse than the positive. True, there are good applications of it. I never denied that. Of course, my line of reasoning is far more vast than what I wrote here. I'm just arguing a specific point here, not presenting a thesis. I do think there is more to saving animals than arguing against human growth. Of course, people need incentives.