5 ms·

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 li

by 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.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological process. If the modern world goes away right now, you can survive, but you're going to need B12 and that means eggs milk and meat. I would tend to think that in the absence of technology matters of actual ethics would remain constant. Do you think that because technology makes something possible that you should use it to justify your choice as "ethical", and apply it to others?
  - myrmidon 3y ago
    My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.
    - zer00eyz 3y ago
      >> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
      - psd1 3y ago
        Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  No, I've just resolved that I live an ethically unjustifiable life. It's more honest that way.
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.

by twiss 3y ago

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.
zer00eyz 3y ago
>> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological process. If the modern world goes away right now, you can survive, but you're going to need B12 and that means eggs milk and meat. I would tend to think that in the absence of technology matters of actual ethics would remain constant. Do you think that because technology makes something possible that you should use it to justify your choice as "ethical", and apply it to others?
- myrmidon 3y ago
  My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
    - psd1 3y ago
      Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
No, I've just resolved that I live an ethically unjustifiable life. It's more honest that way.

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.