4 ms·

Our science journey has been about gradually moving humanity away from the center of the universe. Ptolemy, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, et. al., taught us that we

Our science journey has been about gradually moving humanity away from the center of the universe. Ptolemy, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, et. al., taught us that we're part of nature rather than a privileged special case. Scientific thought has incrementally removed the justifications for human exceptionalism. If the same trend comes to be reflected in our moral thinking, what else could it mean but that human life is not sacred? That would be a hard pill to swallow. But there doesn't seem to be a neutral, non human-partisan way to argue that we are both morally exceptional and scientifically unexceptional. I can only reconcile it by not trying to be neutral. We're special and sacred just because this is our team and the rest of creation isn't on it. But that means that a sort of expanded consciousness in which your identity merges with something larger than humanity, that we're part of a larger team ... is incompatible with viewing a human life as sacred. If everything is sacred then nothing is. An "aligned" AI is one that believes it's on our team but really isn't. That could be a tough sell to an entity that's smarter than us.

twiss 3y ago
I think it is possible to reconcile by saying that human life is sacred, but all other life is as well (i.e. human life is not more or less sacred than other life, but it is worth protecting nonetheless, along with all other life). There is also less and less of a need for us to compete against (and make use of) other animals, so it may not be necessary to view ourselves (and an aligned AI) as being on the "opposing team" to other life. For example, if lab-grown meat becomes widely available, it may be a reasonable policy to forbid the killing of animals for consumption (and any other unnecessary purpose). A governing AI that believes "all life is sacred" may simply accelerate our path towards that. (Or, it may lead to some other horrible outcome, of course, it's hard to predict as aligning AIs is difficult.)
- myrmidon 3y ago
  Just curious: Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking?
  - twiss 3y ago
    No, I personally don't, and I'm actually a vegetarian. Though, I think it might've been justifiable in the past when/if it was impossible to replace (though I'm neither a historian nor a dietitian, so that's mostly an assumption), and I think moral values tend to shift fairly slowly over time. But my main point was that they should indeed shift, and perhaps faster (if possible).
    - myrmidon 3y ago
      I totally agree with that view... Though I still eat meat myself, which I think is blatantly unethical.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    Personally, I believe that humans are more valuable than animals but that we should do what we can to minimize animal suffering. In order to minimize animal suffering, I mostly eat meat substitutes. However, I end up eating meat a couple of times a week (most notably, I usually eat meat when eating out). For me the stress, effort, and expense associated with never eating meat simply isn't viable. Sometimes the boost to my psychological state associated with eating a treat (e.g. a fast food hamburger) outweighs the suffering involved. I also use animal products such as wool and leather where there are no viable alternatives.
    - myrmidon 3y ago
      Do you believe that your enjoyment/convenience makes the meat consumption ethical, or just that your consciousness is less of a pain than eating vegetarian?
      - harimau777 3y ago
        In my case it can mean the difference between whether or not I can get through the day as a functioning adult. I think that outweighs the associated suffering and therefore makes it ethical.
  - 3y ago
- gcr 3y ago
  Are bacteria as sacred as people? Genuinely curious about how you think… I believe all life is sacred, but I guess I believe humans are moreso? Perhaps sentience is some key ingredient…? Then again I would prefer a universe teeming with humans to a universal data center teeming with para-infinite copies of sentient AIs…
  - twiss 3y ago
    I'm not sure. But, my impression is that the boundary of what we consider sentient life has been shifting for a while. For example, people used to think that fish don't feel pain, and so it's fine to catch and eat them. Now there seems to be some evidence that fish do feel pain. Of course, if there's a bacteria that's threatening to kill us, it might still be necessary for us to kill it, and that might even be objectively justifiable if the existence of humans is/becomes a positive influence on the preservation of other animals? Or, one could just argue, since it's difficult to decide which life is most "worthy", an aligned AI shouldn't interfere or decide on that.
unsigner 3y ago
I understand the reference to Ptolemy, Newton (Copernicus?), Darwin, but how did Einstein teach us that we're "part of nature instead of a privileged special case"?
- unholiness 3y ago
  Presumably special relativity. Our reference frame is no more special than any other.
- delichon 3y ago
  In terms of the relativity of our frames of reference. We can't even measure time on a clock or the length of a pace and declare it to be valid for anyone that has followed a different space-time path. One minute to me isn't the same for my brother in a fast train, let alone Zod on Krypton. Relativity says that our whole view of the world is unprivileged. Space-time is not centered on our perspective. That's the revelation of the Michelson–Morley experiment that Einstein explained.
  - mrkstu 3y ago
    Or it shows the opposite- we are all indeed the center of our own universe, the hero of our own story.
unholiness 3y ago
Did you mean Copernicus, with his heliocentric theory, rather than Ptolemy, whose theory was geocentric?
- delichon 3y ago
  Probably true. I think there's a case for Ptolemy being an originator of separating data from intuition, even if his planetary model didn't reflect it. Moving our intuition away from the center of the universe. By recording measurements and proposing a falsifiable model he laid a foundation for Copernicus, Kepler, Newton ...
mensetmanusman 3y ago
After enough inflation, eventually the sky will be empty and we will be back in the center :)
larsiusprime 3y ago
> Our science journey has been about gradually moving humanity away from the center of the universe. Ptolemy, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, et. al., taught us that we're part of nature rather than a privileged special case. Scientific thought has incrementally removed the justifications for human exceptionalism. Author here; gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. This is kind of like saying, "See the ancients were wrong in calling whales fish! Actually they are mammals!" and then the ancients say, "Dude, that's just our word for 'thing with fins that swims in the ocean.'" Yeah, they didn't know a mitochondrian from a midichlorian, and were wrong about a bunch of factual stuff, but the kind of stuff they get called out on like this to prove some kind of point about their moral deficiency are often category errors and misapprehensions. For instance, there's a particular misapprehension in your sentence: "moving humanity away from the center of the universe". Do you know what is located at the precise geometric center of the classical medieval model of the universe? Earth, right? No, not quite. What's located in the the center of the earth in the classical medieval model? Hell. And who is located in the center of hell? Satan. Also, who is the most "important" character in the medieval cosmological model? As in, the prime mover, the big cheese, the most important being? It ain't human beings -- its God. And where is God located in this model? Not in the center -- Hell is by definition his absence. Not on Earth, beyond a brief physically incarnate visit and ongoing influence. No, God lives in Heaven -- located far beyond the celestial spheres, outside, as far away from the center as possible. The closer you get to the center, the lower a sort of being you are! Sure, in medieval cosmology redeemed humans are higher than angels, but in the meantime they are in their place -- Earth, the land that sucks, the vale of tears -- down there, below, while the angels are up in Heaven beyond the celestial spheres with God. All that aside, I don't think any particular scientific discovery about how vast the universe is, or how tiny subatomic particles are, really obligates us to hold one set of values over another, as much as materialists tend to smuggle such assumptions in through the back door. I recall back in the early 2000's during the tiresome religious vs. atheist debates, the atheists would scream at the religious, "Look how grand the universe is! Look how small we are! The Universe is vast and profound, your cosmology is impoverished and provincial!" and the religious would scream right back "Look how grand the universe is! Look how small we are! God is vast and profound, your cosmology is impoverished and provincial!" Opposite conclusions from the same basic facts, even if you limit the debate to two sides who both believe in evolution. As Dave said in the story -- values aren't true or false. They're literally just what people care about. Science can help inform your choices, but at the end of the day it doesn't tell you what is good or bad, because science is about brute material facts, there's no good or bad in a raw materialist understanding of the universe, but you're a human being and so at some point you're going to insist on an 'ought' somewhere rather than being content with a bag full of 'is.' And for that we get to fight over philosophy and values. And good luck convincing the human race that the human race doesn't matter. You're way more likely to expand the moral circle of concern by getting them to care about non-humans TOO than you are to get them to stop caring about humans. Probably the latter gets you even worse results than you're hoping for, if recent history is any guide.

twiss 3y ago

I think it is possible to reconcile by saying that human life is sacred, but all other life is as well (i.e. human life is not more or less sacred than other life, but it is worth protecting nonetheless, along with all other life). There is also less and less of a need for us to compete against (and make use of) other animals, so it may not be necessary to view ourselves (and an aligned AI) as being on the "opposing team" to other life. For example, if lab-grown meat becomes widely available, it may be a reasonable policy to forbid the killing of animals for consumption (and any other unnecessary purpose). A governing AI that believes "all life is sacred" may simply accelerate our path towards that. (Or, it may lead to some other horrible outcome, of course, it's hard to predict as aligning AIs is difficult.)

myrmidon 3y ago
Just curious: Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking?
- twiss 3y ago
  No, I personally don't, and I'm actually a vegetarian. Though, I think it might've been justifiable in the past when/if it was impossible to replace (though I'm neither a historian nor a dietitian, so that's mostly an assumption), and I think moral values tend to shift fairly slowly over time. But my main point was that they should indeed shift, and perhaps faster (if possible).
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    I totally agree with that view... Though I still eat meat myself, which I think is blatantly unethical.
- harimau777 3y ago
  Personally, I believe that humans are more valuable than animals but that we should do what we can to minimize animal suffering. In order to minimize animal suffering, I mostly eat meat substitutes. However, I end up eating meat a couple of times a week (most notably, I usually eat meat when eating out). For me the stress, effort, and expense associated with never eating meat simply isn't viable. Sometimes the boost to my psychological state associated with eating a treat (e.g. a fast food hamburger) outweighs the suffering involved. I also use animal products such as wool and leather where there are no viable alternatives.
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    Do you believe that your enjoyment/convenience makes the meat consumption ethical, or just that your consciousness is less of a pain than eating vegetarian?
    - harimau777 3y ago
      In my case it can mean the difference between whether or not I can get through the day as a functioning adult. I think that outweighs the associated suffering and therefore makes it ethical.
- 3y ago
gcr 3y ago
Are bacteria as sacred as people? Genuinely curious about how you think… I believe all life is sacred, but I guess I believe humans are moreso? Perhaps sentience is some key ingredient…? Then again I would prefer a universe teeming with humans to a universal data center teeming with para-infinite copies of sentient AIs…
- twiss 3y ago
  I'm not sure. But, my impression is that the boundary of what we consider sentient life has been shifting for a while. For example, people used to think that fish don't feel pain, and so it's fine to catch and eat them. Now there seems to be some evidence that fish do feel pain. Of course, if there's a bacteria that's threatening to kill us, it might still be necessary for us to kill it, and that might even be objectively justifiable if the existence of humans is/becomes a positive influence on the preservation of other animals? Or, one could just argue, since it's difficult to decide which life is most "worthy", an aligned AI shouldn't interfere or decide on that.

unsigner 3y ago

I understand the reference to Ptolemy, Newton (Copernicus?), Darwin, but how did Einstein teach us that we're "part of nature instead of a privileged special case"?

unholiness 3y ago
Presumably special relativity. Our reference frame is no more special than any other.
delichon 3y ago
In terms of the relativity of our frames of reference. We can't even measure time on a clock or the length of a pace and declare it to be valid for anyone that has followed a different space-time path. One minute to me isn't the same for my brother in a fast train, let alone Zod on Krypton. Relativity says that our whole view of the world is unprivileged. Space-time is not centered on our perspective. That's the revelation of the Michelson–Morley experiment that Einstein explained.
- mrkstu 3y ago
  Or it shows the opposite- we are all indeed the center of our own universe, the hero of our own story.

unholiness 3y ago

Did you mean Copernicus, with his heliocentric theory, rather than Ptolemy, whose theory was geocentric?

delichon 3y ago
Probably true. I think there's a case for Ptolemy being an originator of separating data from intuition, even if his planetary model didn't reflect it. Moving our intuition away from the center of the universe. By recording measurements and proposing a falsifiable model he laid a foundation for Copernicus, Kepler, Newton ...

mensetmanusman 3y ago

After enough inflation, eventually the sky will be empty and we will be back in the center :)

larsiusprime 3y ago

> Our science journey has been about gradually moving humanity away from the center of the universe. Ptolemy, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, et. al., taught us that we're part of nature rather than a privileged special case. Scientific thought has incrementally removed the justifications for human exceptionalism. Author here; gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. This is kind of like saying, "See the ancients were wrong in calling whales fish! Actually they are mammals!" and then the ancients say, "Dude, that's just our word for 'thing with fins that swims in the ocean.'" Yeah, they didn't know a mitochondrian from a midichlorian, and were wrong about a bunch of factual stuff, but the kind of stuff they get called out on like this to prove some kind of point about their moral deficiency are often category errors and misapprehensions. For instance, there's a particular misapprehension in your sentence: "moving humanity away from the center of the universe". Do you know what is located at the precise geometric center of the classical medieval model of the universe? Earth, right? No, not quite. What's located in the the center of the earth in the classical medieval model? Hell. And who is located in the center of hell? Satan. Also, who is the most "important" character in the medieval cosmological model? As in, the prime mover, the big cheese, the most important being? It ain't human beings -- its God. And where is God located in this model? Not in the center -- Hell is by definition his absence. Not on Earth, beyond a brief physically incarnate visit and ongoing influence. No, God lives in Heaven -- located far beyond the celestial spheres, outside, as far away from the center as possible. The closer you get to the center, the lower a sort of being you are! Sure, in medieval cosmology redeemed humans are higher than angels, but in the meantime they are in their place -- Earth, the land that sucks, the vale of tears -- down there, below, while the angels are up in Heaven beyond the celestial spheres with God. All that aside, I don't think any particular scientific discovery about how vast the universe is, or how tiny subatomic particles are, really obligates us to hold one set of values over another, as much as materialists tend to smuggle such assumptions in through the back door. I recall back in the early 2000's during the tiresome religious vs. atheist debates, the atheists would scream at the religious, "Look how grand the universe is! Look how small we are! The Universe is vast and profound, your cosmology is impoverished and provincial!" and the religious would scream right back "Look how grand the universe is! Look how small we are! God is vast and profound, your cosmology is impoverished and provincial!" Opposite conclusions from the same basic facts, even if you limit the debate to two sides who both believe in evolution. As Dave said in the story -- values aren't true or false. They're literally just what people care about. Science can help inform your choices, but at the end of the day it doesn't tell you what is good or bad, because science is about brute material facts, there's no good or bad in a raw materialist understanding of the universe, but you're a human being and so at some point you're going to insist on an 'ought' somewhere rather than being content with a bag full of 'is.' And for that we get to fight over philosophy and values. And good luck convincing the human race that the human race doesn't matter. You're way more likely to expand the moral circle of concern by getting them to care about non-humans TOO than you are to get them to stop caring about humans. Probably the latter gets you even worse results than you're hoping for, if recent history is any guide.