>This is how cultural evolution works. Those societies that work well gain members, either by birth or immigration/conversion, while those that don’t lose members will ultimately go extinct. This concept is so important for anyone thinking about the human systems that are societies. You can’t just ignore real-world effects and insist that your policies are correct because of a convincing argument. You have to look at actual results, and how those good-sounding policies could have devastating, unintended consequences.
I broadly agree with this take on cultural evolution, but I will say I've heard some convincing arguments from the folks who take short AGI timelines really seriously. If we crack the code of creating machines that can do the equivalent to human labor, why is fertility rate an issue anymore?
When you start asking that question, I think it helps get to more fundamental value differences. For me personally I just think that the human biological family is something that should be kept and catered to, and we throw it out at our peril. But if the main justification is just cultural survival, I don't know if that argument holds up in the face of a truly general artificial intelligence.
Ah, I just noticed a typo in what you quoted. I will have to fix that.
Well, we wouldn’t need labor from human anymore. But whether a society is growing or shrinking is a good metric for whether people want to be in that society or not. Are people immigrating or emigrating? If one is going to make a career out of governing they should want to be good at it, and whether or not you’re doing a good job is whether you need to build walls to keep people in or keep people out.
I don’t think we need to justify why we should value human life. We just should because we’re humans. I guess that wouldn’t be a good justification to an evil ai but hopefully it won’t come to that. But the culture is there for humans not humans for culture. We need culture and we might as well have a good one.
>I don’t think we need to justify why we should value human life. We just should because we’re humans. I guess that wouldn’t be a good justification to an evil ai but hopefully it won’t come to that. But the culture is there for humans not humans for culture. We need culture and we might as well have a good one.
Sadly, many hardline utilitarians that hold power in the tech sphere would disagree with this conception. The crazed idea that 'positive qualia' is the only true good has taken hold of many of those within the upper echelons of the tech world.
>This is how cultural evolution works. Those societies that work well gain members, either by birth or immigration/conversion, while those that don’t lose members will ultimately go extinct. This concept is so important for anyone thinking about the human systems that are societies. You can’t just ignore real-world effects and insist that your policies are correct because of a convincing argument. You have to look at actual results, and how those good-sounding policies could have devastating, unintended consequences.
I broadly agree with this take on cultural evolution, but I will say I've heard some convincing arguments from the folks who take short AGI timelines really seriously. If we crack the code of creating machines that can do the equivalent to human labor, why is fertility rate an issue anymore?
When you start asking that question, I think it helps get to more fundamental value differences. For me personally I just think that the human biological family is something that should be kept and catered to, and we throw it out at our peril. But if the main justification is just cultural survival, I don't know if that argument holds up in the face of a truly general artificial intelligence.
Ah, I just noticed a typo in what you quoted. I will have to fix that.
Well, we wouldn’t need labor from human anymore. But whether a society is growing or shrinking is a good metric for whether people want to be in that society or not. Are people immigrating or emigrating? If one is going to make a career out of governing they should want to be good at it, and whether or not you’re doing a good job is whether you need to build walls to keep people in or keep people out.
I don’t think we need to justify why we should value human life. We just should because we’re humans. I guess that wouldn’t be a good justification to an evil ai but hopefully it won’t come to that. But the culture is there for humans not humans for culture. We need culture and we might as well have a good one.
>I don’t think we need to justify why we should value human life. We just should because we’re humans. I guess that wouldn’t be a good justification to an evil ai but hopefully it won’t come to that. But the culture is there for humans not humans for culture. We need culture and we might as well have a good one.
Sadly, many hardline utilitarians that hold power in the tech sphere would disagree with this conception. The crazed idea that 'positive qualia' is the only true good has taken hold of many of those within the upper echelons of the tech world.
Makes me want to go Amish.