CHAT ARCHIVE<BJKlein> Topic: Are Immortalists Selfish?
<jubungalord> can humans not be selfish, Is dying selfish?
<Utnapishtim> I find the term selfish orblematic
<Utnapishtim> problematic
<Lazarus_Long> The light bringer says Yes to get started, do we have a dissenting opinion?
<celindra> Ahem .... please define selfish before Anissimov and I argue over altruism for 2 hours
<Utnapishtim> for the same reason I find terms like terrorist problematic
<Utnapishtim> they are morally judgmental as well as descriptive
<Lazarus_Long> How ratinally selfless of you celidra
<Mermaid> there is nothing wrong with selfishness
<Utnapishtim> The term selfish tacitly assumes zero sum conditions
<BJKlein> Certainly the topic of selfishness leaves much gray area for neadless discussion..
<Lazarus_Long> self aware is not selfish, but it is not solipcistic either
<BJKlein> but, what the hell, we have plenty of time
<Lazarus_Long> Who gets to define the "self" the individual or the collective?
<Utnapishtim> Our economic system is founded on the assumption that the creative pursuit of selfinterest inevitably creates rather than limits opportunities for other whether such a result is intended or not
<BJKlein> So, let's try to define what we mean when the average person says you're selfish.. then go on to a more rational perspective
<celindra> Oh boy ...
<Lazarus_Long> selfinsh all for me and none for you
<BJKlein> ok..
<Lazarus_Long> selfish=
<Flux> selfserving, often negative to others
<Utnapishtim> Note the assumption that the total pie size is fixed
<Lazarus_Long> self serving can be selfless if the self is defined as refferring to the self interest of special interest
<celindra> ?
<Lazarus_Long> special can be a family or a business
<Flux> I got it...
<Lazarus_Long> sspecuial interest*
<Lazarus_Long> special I give up you folks talk a while
<Flux> such as genetic interest?
<BJKlein> so selfishness has a mainly materialistic aspect
<Lazarus_Long> genetic as in tribal clan yes
<Flux> genetic support (survival of the fitest)
<Sumadartsun> Some argue immortalism is selfish in that it can lead to intellectual stagnation if the same people stay all the time instead of fresh new blood
<Lazarus_Long> survival of the fittest is subjective to environment as much as individual interst
<BJKlein> Sumadartsun, a good argument against that is Bill Gates..
<Utnapishtim> I would argue that the rights of existing people take priority over the rights of hypothetical ones
<BJKlein> he started Microsoft as a new company.
<BJKlein> with a new idea
<Lazarus_Long> Sum that is the consolidationo of wealth argument and if immortalism leads to the end of growth it is correct "in the end"
<Flux> Gates started with a meme?
<Lazarus_Long> BJ the exception doesn't proove the rule in Gates case, except by contrast
<Lazarus_Long> Gates is applying the meme of "nobless onlige"
<Flux> lol
<Utnapishtim> I do think Bruce is correct though that in a society based on free markets complacency can get stomped on pretty quick
<Lazarus_Long> online right :( nO OBLIGE
<Ocsrazor> Laz, consolidation of wealth will not happen in a free market ofver extended periods
<BJKlein> are not most businesses small businesses
<Sumadartsun> Of course, non-0-sumness mitigates this effect; but I do think it exists, even though it will probably be made irrelevant by other technological developments
<Ocsrazor> too many competitors
<Lazarus_Long> yes it does and anyway we don't have free markets
<Ocsrazor> not perfect, but good enough to knock down monopolies
<Lazarus_Long> not without growth of new competitionor the system falls into a status quo operation
<Flux> patents, biases, not free
<Utnapishtim> I would also say that living is a socially conservative society is preferable to being dead
<Lazarus_Long> not on any level of a global scale do we have free markets enough to assume that they will ever exist
<Lazarus_Long> itis a task to create them
<Ocsrazor> what monopoly has ever survived in the long run in our system?
<Flux> Banks?
<jubungalord> the government
<ravi> i don't think wanting more life is selfish...however, to a person who is living on the street trying to survive to the next day, it seems slefish to them that we want to be immortal, so it depends on the person
<Sumadartsun> Utnapishtim: true, but their argument is that other people would otherwise be alive
<Lazarus_Long> Federal Reserve is an example that is becoming the World bank
<Mermaid> hey ranger
<Utnapishtim> sumadartsun. As I said earlier the rights of hypothetical people are less important to me than the rights of existing ones. If that is selfish I plead guilty as charged
<localroger> Hi
<Ocsrazor> Sum - how does people being immortal stop new people from being born?
* Sumadartsun is annoyed by his own slow typing; just switched to different keyboard layout
<BJKlein> dvorak?
<Lazarus_Long> Oil as an industry is totally interdependent on transportatio industrt to the exclusion of developing new tech now
<Sumadartsun> BJKlein: yes
<Utnapishtim> and nonexistent if people have a right to be born, how do you justify contraception?
<Ocsrazor> I would agree there LAz, but that will soon end
<Lazarus_Long> Not without major economic disruptionif the workers fear displacement
<jubungalord> I don't think selfishness can be defined with any intentionality in it's definition
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor: it doesn't, assuming we're not near a resource limit
<Lazarus_Long> hereit is a selfish issue, who gets to ddecide on change, producers or concumers?
<FluxPreDreaming> but what about the states of selfishness?
<Lazarus_Long> consumers*
<Ocsrazor> It can't continue forever because other nations will develop alternative transport/energy resoruces and outcompete the current industry
<Lazarus_Long> not before going first into excess demand based on current applied tech
<Ocsrazor> Sum - then the argument is irrelevant
<Lazarus_Long> China as an emerging market is building cars more than mass transit right now
<Lazarus_Long> they are following the 50/60's economic growth model from the US, and they will stop ten years too late
<Ocsrazor> once there is enough popular demand for alternative technology there will a rapid movement away from the stauts quo
<Ocsrazor> ten years too late for what?
<Lazarus_Long> Their cities are copying the same growth curve and they are only one example
<localroger> India and China are already showing trends toward infant sex selection which will be very unpleasant for the next generation to deal with
<Lazarus_Long> ten yeasrs too late for level consumption with remaining resources while new options come online
<Sumadartsun> Utnapishtim, I like the idea of equal 'rights' for the hypothetical and would justify contraceptives by reasons such as other goals and optimum population levels
<Mermaid> china already is feeling its effects
<BJKlein> (blank statement) The battle between socialism and free markets has been decided... now with globalization, no one country has power. This will lead to a more interdependent and efficent world.
<Lazarus_Long> it is a factor pushing the memtics of global war
<staph> hmmm.... there's good reason to believe that the resource issue is moot....
<Lazarus_Long> Efficiency is also a consequence of failure, and surviving it
<localroger> BJKlein, there is nothing "free" about current "free" markets. They are orchestrated for the enrichment of a certain small Western elite.
<Ocsrazor> Agreed staph...
<Ocsrazor> in the long run there is no resource issue
<localroger> As many card counters have been heard to ask, how long do we have to wait for the "long run"?
<staph> local, thats not true.... about the elite.
<Lazarus_Long> I disagree about the resource issue because the promise hasn't yet materialized
<staph> but it has
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, if the assumption holds, the argument is indeed irrelevant; it's not obvious we are not near a (temporary) resource limit and will not be in the future
<staph> the green revolution of the 70's
<Sumadartsun> , though.
<Ocsrazor> every scary prediction about scarce resources has never come true
<staph> in the seventies it almost came true...
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, agreed
<localroger> Ocsrazor, many such predictions have come true at local scale. Just never globally.
<Ocsrazor> agreed local
<Ocsrazor> brb
<staph> thats because the local scale effects are not resource dependent
<Lazarus_Long> not true biodiversity habitat is devasted worlwide and poverty hasn't leveled off at all but is climbing
<BJKlein> really what resources limit represents is just a lack of ideas.. and we have more and more great ideas now than ever before
<staph> they are socially dependent
<staph> like wars and stuff
<Ocsrazor> back
<staph> BJ: exactly. and that trend will only continue to speed up
<localroger> Problem is that increasing power/modalities cause the scale to shrink, so that the world is no longer a comparatively infinite sink for all the crap we want it to absorb
<Lazarus_Long> again the memetics of war are driven by increasing demand on resources that aren't equitably distributed now
<Lucifer> Won't prime realestate continue to be a scarce resource?
<staph> yes
<staph> but thats a cultural luxury
<staph> long....what war...
<staph> everyone's chilling out
<Ocsrazor> agreed Laz that there is a resource distribution prob.... but that is not the same as scarce resources
<Lazarus_Long> and these are not resources that are growing concurrent with population demand
<staph> no way... look at recently developed tech
<Ocsrazor> but they are... they are just not being shared
<staph> honda FCX hydro fuel cell car.... highly advanced, no emissions
<staph> as just one example
<Sumadartsun> there is almost certainly no resource problem in the long run, but it will probably still be true at any point in time that there can exist only a limited number of people
<localroger> There are certain resources (e.g. petroleum) that are just plain limited; we don't know how limited but we know more isn't being made. Technology /may/ give us replacements but to assert that it /always/ will is an article of religious faith.
<Lazarus_Long> Staph Columbia, Africa, Global Terrorism, Phillipenes, and our foothold in Central Asia is no walk in the park
<BJKlein> people maybe, but not mind children
<staph> sum: agreed, but those limits are largely due to ineffeceincy
<staph> yeah, laz, I know...
<Lucifer> Is there any advantage to staying the same size in the future, or will we get small?
<Ocsrazor> there is prob an upper limit, but humans have never hit it
<Lazarus_Long> the resource issue can be solved but is there a will to solve it?
<staph> continued growth is necessary
<staph> even if it must be offworld
<Ocsrazor> there is a major disadvantage to staying the same size...
<staph> think about it
<BJKlein> we'll get networked... smaller and larger at the same time
<Lazarus_Long> Also this is not the prime cause of teh selfish argument for cultures can be selfish
<localroger> To plan on requiring continued growth is insane.
<staph> what happens with larger populations
<Lazarus_Long> that is what teh history of Imperialism is about
<staph> in evolutionary terms
<Sumadartsun> (if not, then for weird futurological reasons that are not easily explained to the sort of people making these arguments)
<Ocsrazor> why is that insane roger?
<Lazarus_Long> cultural imperatives make my population's needs more important than yours
<staph> how many diseases emerged from 1918 to 1978?
<staph> and how many from 78 till now
<Lazarus_Long> I am not advocating I am establishing the meme BTW
<localroger> Because we have no guarantee that there will ever be space migration, or that it will be economical to move large populations offworld if it is. You do not plan on mystery technologies saving your butt. You plan with what you have so that you are pleasantly surprised later.
<Ocsrazor> that is why is extremely important for merging of cultures to occur Laz
* Sumadartsun wishes he could type faster :/
<Ocsrazor> but there will always be competition of sum form
<Ocsrazor> some
<staph> local..that strategy is highly suboptimal
<localroger> Define "optimal." Would you accept a gift of $1,000,000 in exchange for taking a 1 in 38 chance of losing your life?
<staph> look: if you have a large, mobile population, evolution speeds up as pop increases
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<BJKlein> nope
<staph> maybe
<Lazarus_Long> forced assimilationof culture accelerates teh conflict Occam
<Ocsrazor> they are not mystery tech local.. the writing is already on the wall
<Sumadartsun> localroger, that's not an attitude I agree with; all the knowledge you have should be taken into account
<localroger> We do not know what technologies will come around. We do know that our civilization and our culture will be gone in a few centuries if it depends on constant growth, because the Earth simply won't support that.
<Lazarus_Long> it is pushing teh war meme into overdrive
<Sumadartsun> localroger, surely you recognize there are some things that can be (tentatively) predicted about techs that will be available?
<Ocsrazor> there is great danger roger, but also great opportunity, and there is no way back
<Ocsrazor> only forward
<staph> agreed
<staph> listen:
<localroger> None of the really important technologies that have arisen in the last 200 years could have been predicted even 10 years in advance. They were entirely new and surprising when they were discovered.
<Ocsrazor> back is a more sure way to extinction than forward
<Lazarus_Long> yes but forward is between Scylla and Carybdis
<Lazarus_Long> the rock and teh hard place
<staph> we either act like rats on a sinking ship, or we join the bucket brigade. there is no middle path
<localroger> It is like saying "we know the Correlation Effect or its equivalent will eventually be discovered." No we don't know that, becasue the Universe might not permit that.
<Lazarus_Long> Universe permit?
<Lazarus_Long> can I just pay for a permit and get one?
<BJKlein> heh
<Ocsrazor> chances are not that bad Laz, we have already passed many of the key roadblocks
<Sumadartsun> (must resist the lure of switching back to qwerty)
<localroger> LL, yes, universe permit. The Universe might not allow for certain modalities. FTL travel comes to mind. It simply might not be possible at all.
<staph> we are in RSI now..... now turning back
<Mermaid> oops..ftl?
<BJKlein> Sumadartsun: if you don't you're a better man than I
<Lazarus_Long> the better we become the worse teh fewer faults we have because each unsolved factor becomes ever more catastrophic in its potential
<Ocsrazor> faster than light
<Ocsrazor> merm
<Mermaid> gotcha
<Mermaid> rsi?
<Ocsrazor> that is not necessarily true LAz...
<Lazarus_Long> Natual law wa one of the issues I was alluding to when I asked if unnatural exists?
<staph> Recursive Self Improvement
* Mermaid will have to look that up
<Mermaid> thanks
<Ocsrazor> there are boom/bust cycles in development of complex systems
<localroger> Bifurcation graph.
<staph> Ocs..do you know why?
<Ocsrazor> we have past several points of stabilization
<Lazarus_Long> Is Intelligence a Natural Force, say like gravity?
<Sumadartsun> localroger, there is a difference between things we think contradict the laws of nature (ftl) and things we think are possible but have not discovered yet (such as nanotech)
<Ocsrazor> complexity is... and intelligence is an expression of complexity
<XxDoubleHelixX> be more specific with the word nanotech
<staph> why the boom and bust cycle?
<Lazarus_Long> complexity is a force? or an experience?
<XxDoubleHelixX> nanobots parsay
<Ocsrazor> btw ftl does not contradict the laws of nature
<Ocsrazor> according to recent cosmology
<Sumadartsun> eh?
<localroger> Nanotech in terms of "gray goo" and a lot of what is promised does contradict the laws of nature. FTL doesn't contradict known principles if it's instantaneous, but we have no guarantee that there is a modality for achieving it at macroscopic scale.
<Lazarus_Long> I wasn't arguing they do BTW, I don't assume we are cognizant of all Natural Law
<staph> anyone?
<Ocsrazor> we just may be a looooong way from harnessing it
<Ocsrazor> sorry staph...
<localroger> My point was that there may be no more powerful modalities waiting to be found, at all. We have no guarantee that there are.
<staph> no need to apologize
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, what new cosmology is that?
<staph> I'll explain it
<Ocsrazor> boom/bust in terms of rapid development versus stable slow growth
<Lazarus_Long> Boom bust is because no system apears able to undo itself when confronted with a need for rapid change
<staph> boom bust is simple
<Lazarus_Long> it seems to require an external stimulus, like new generations
<Lazarus_Long> or war
<staph> it is the same thing as the cultural "pendulum" effect
<XxDoubleHelixX> harnessing our ability to make new advances?
<Lazarus_Long> or natural catastrophe
<localroger> Boom bust is doom. If the possible population ever goes to zero, it will, and once it goes there it will never recover.
<staph> it is the result of delayed oppositional reactive systems
<localroger> Any self-respecting immortal would be focused on finding stable ways to live. To do otherwise is suicide.
<Ocsrazor> chance the local pop will go to zero is next to nil now
<localroger> Tell it to the dinosaurs
<Lazarus_Long> we aren't a global society of immortals yet
<Ocsrazor> some survived, they are birds
<XxDoubleHelixX> crocs
<Ocsrazor> the system didn't disappear
<localroger> All over 25 lb individual weight died. Last time I looked I weighed quite a bit more than that.
<XxDoubleHelixX> and then some...
<Lazarus_Long> mammals and insects too
<staph> do any of you know why a social backlash occurs?
<localroger> The system radically changed, all the dominant forms were lost, and it took tens of millions of years to recover even a fraction of its former complexity.
<BJKlein> any self-respecting immortal would be finding ways to speed up in order to find fast release from biodeath
<XxDoubleHelixX> people wanting to stagnate the enviroment?
<XxDoubleHelixX> <shrug>
<localroger> Frankly I'd consider any result that did not include humans to be a failure from our perspective.
<Lazarus_Long> but I would rather not endure a cataclysmic cycle
<Ocsrazor> our survival systems are far more developed than anything that came before
<Lazarus_Long> I consider any result with a Trantor environment a failure too
<localroger> Our survival systems are very fragile on a long-term basis.
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, so are our techs of mass destruction
* staph notes that this discussion isn't even addressing the truly relevant issues
<Ocsrazor> absolutely not LR, the system as a whole is extremely stable
<localroger> Let's face it, long-term planning is not a thing humans are noted for doing well
<Lazarus_Long> Staph is right that we are off topic
<Ocsrazor> we as indiviuals are not doing the planning anymore
<staph> we are past the point of no return
<localroger> Ocs, stable how? All over the place there are criticality-one choke points. Just because we have never seen a catastrophe that kills "technos" doesn't mean such isn't possible.
<Lazarus_Long> The toic is are Imoortals niherently selfish?
* staph is of the opinion that a slow takeoff is already underway
<Lazarus_Long> Should we vote to start off with for a show of hands?
<Lazarus_Long> and are we talking anybody or just ourselvs?
<Lazarus_Long> the topic isare immortals selfish?
<localroger> Of course it is "selfish" to want for yourself more resources, and extended life requires that. But if you are taking from people that will never exist because of the space you're taking up, I have no problem with that.
* BJKlein lets Lazarus_Long stear us back on topic
<Eliezer> and Tegmark, of course, tells us that "never exist" is an absurdity
<localroger> OTOH if we keep breeding like bunny rabbits and planning like 5 years is long term we are going to find out why the bifurcation fractal always goes flat at a certain point.
<staph> um... the issue will be decided way before resources run out
<celindra> Don't think we ever defined "selfish"
<Lazarus_Long> life requires resources why does extended life require anymoer resoucres than normal life?
<Lazarus_Long> agreed celindra
<XxDoubleHelixX> yea I think we wouldnt grow in resouce consuption on a personal basis
<localroger> Because it's bigger. If you live 200 years you will eat twice as much food and take up twice as much acre/years as someone who lives 100 years.
<Lazarus_Long> yes but yo have also been producing all that time too thus contributing
<staph> local... if we are dead because of a rogue AI in 25 years, it doesn't matter
<Eliezer> selfish: egocentric bias in valuation of sentient life, as opposed to symmetrical valuation of all sentients
<localroger> If the world has a carrying capacity of X people, and those people suddenly live twice as long, the carrying capacity goes to X/2.
<Ocsrazor> older healty indiviuals productivity continues to increase indefinitely
<Eliezer> if the carrying capacity is 10^16, who cares
<localroger> Of course I'd also like to live to 80 instead of dying next year, that's kinda selfish too for the same reason.
<Lazarus_Long> Eliezer, how about ethnocentric and genocentric bias?
<staph> eli, thats probably the best definition of selfish I've ever heard......
<Eliezer> Lazarus: that's tribalism rather than selfishness
<celindra> Eliezer, that definition is quite vague
<Lazarus_Long> HOw about simple socioeconomic centrism?
<localroger> Eliezer we can't plan on that until we have some indication. I'm a Singularity type of person myself but I wouldn't put myself in a position where the alternative is certain suicide.
<Eliezer> altruism
<Lazarus_Long> I argued early on that trial/clan ar examples of selfish memes possesed and maintained by individual behavior
<Lazarus_Long> tribal/clan
<Eliezer> Is altruism sacrificing your happiness for the happiness of others, or gaining your happiness through the happiness of others?
<Eliezer> I would say that altruism is making decisions so as to maximize the happiness of all sentients, symmetrically.
<localroger> Good point Eliezer
<staph> the second
<BJKlein> second one
<Lazarus_Long> Yes the collective is cpable of demanding human sacrifice
<staph> no question
<staph> it is rewarding to help others
<Lazarus_Long> groups can be selfish
<staph> they will then help you
<staph> but even if they don't
<staph> you
<celindra> But by fulfilling your own hapiness in being altruistic, you are committing a selfish act
<Lazarus_Long> groups compete with other group's individuals
<staph> have still acted in a utilitarian, altruistic manner
<Eliezer> actually, I shouldn't say "happiness", I should say volitional fulfillment; people may not want to be happy
<celindra> Thus, no selfless acts, only mutually beneficial personal transactions
<Eliezer> indeed, celindra, there is such a thing as selfish altruism
<Ocsrazor> Laz, competition is necessary for further development.. but it can be internalized
<ChrisRovner> Selfish altruism?
<staph> don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....
<Ocsrazor> and be a nondestructive process
<Eliezer> for example, someone who donates to a cause that promises to help starving big-eyed children in Africa, if they know that is a very inefficient philanthropic use of the money, is being selfish
<Eliezer> they are maximizing their gratification from the act of altruism, rather than maximizing the true benefit to others
<Lazarus_Long> I am not sure selfless is truly psychologically possible except as a process of going beyond ones "self" definition to recreate a new one
<Eliezer> however, not all altruism is like that
<staph> life is not a zero sum game....
<Sumadartsun> Eliezer: that would not be altruism according to your definition
<Lazarus_Long> these are differring paradigms, individual verus collective, and individual versus all othe individuals
<staph> or rather it doesn't have to be zero sum
<celindra> Some of us are coming from viewpoint that altruism, as defined by Eliezer, is impossible
<staph> it doesn't matter, as long as end result is same
<celindra> Thus, every act is selfish
<BJKlein> open question: how does an immortalist overcome the social problem of perceived selfisness...
<localroger> Well Cory Doctorow suggested that those who couldn't psychologically handle immortality would just sorta die, leaving only those who could to carry on
<Lazarus_Long> selfish is a personal act between individuals as the kind of behavior we frown upon but it is elevated to a colective need suddenly it is spun to something altruistic
<Ocsrazor> every act is inherently selfish, because you are maximizing your particular goal structure, but...
<staph> look. internal motives don't matter, as long as the external events are the same
<Sumadartsun> it could be impossible; "maximizing happiness" is no longer well defined when infinities are involved
<Lazarus_Long> Good question BJ, gates model is one way andfreely distribulted benefits without obigationis another
<Eliezer> Ocsrazor, that's why I specified an *egocentric bias* in the goal system
<Ocsrazor> that goal structure can include acts good for groups
<Ocsrazor> agreed Eli
<XxDoubleHelixX> Even in a religious such as Xain an act such as "saving a child from a car" since you do this to please "your god" and make your way into a "heaven." May not be prevelent on the outside but I think it is a subcon thing.
<XxDoubleHelixX> yea, thats random
<XxDoubleHelixX> but meh
<Eliezer> "Altruistic behavior: An act done without any intent for personal gain in any form. Altruism requires that there is no want for material, physical, spiritual, or egoistic gain."
<Eliezer> -- Glossary of Zen
<staph> on the AGI list, this issue has been discussed under the name of "wisdom"
<celindra> By that definition, altruism does not exist
<XxDoubleHelixX> I say thats impossible El
<Ocsrazor> that form of altruism may be self destructive
<Lazarus_Long> but many people do not see a benefit through the acquisition of immortality
<Sumadartsun> I have a truly marvellous proof of this, but it would take ages to type at 1/4 typing speed :/
<Lazarus_Long> And Elizer no reason either your definitionof altruism is the same as random chance
<nrv8`> the gain is a byproduct
<staph> poll: how many here are familiar with terms 'inclusive fitness' and 'zero sum game'
<Eliezer> staph: of course
<localroger> one of two
<celindra> zero sum - yes
<ChrisRovner> The key word in that definition is
<Ocsrazor> yes staph
<ChrisRovner> *personal* gain
<BJKlein> staph, I think I saw the movie 'beautiful mind'
<staph> well we are not in a zero-sum situation
<Lazarus_Long> back to the relativity of individuality
<staph> I didn't
<localroger> staph: we are until new modalities arrive which prove otherwise.
<Eliezer> from CFAI:
<Eliezer> 1. I am trying to achieve the content of concept G0025. (concept G0025 == 'Friendliness').
<Eliezer> 2. I am trying to achieve [descriptive content: 1, 2, 3...]. (The content of G0025; 'Fulfill requests, don't violate volitions...')
<Eliezer> 3. I am trying to achieve [external referent] to which [descriptive content: 1, 2, 3...] is an approximation.
<staph> the new modalities are coming at an accelerating pace
<Eliezer> that's in
http://www.singinst....e/external.html<Eliezer> and the point is the difference between helping others because it will help others, and helping others because it feels good to help others
<Davidov> Individuality is nil when integrated with materialism
<localroger> But so far the new modalities only shrink the world, making the zero sum game more stark. The new modality which will make cheap space travel for billions of people an option is not on the horizon.
<Eliezer> there is a genuine difference between a goal system that tries to maximize "the number of helped others" and a goal system that tries to maximize "the satisfaction of the goal system"
<staph> local.....they do not
<Eliezer> the second shorts out under self-modification, the first does not
<Lazarus_Long> why not help others because it is selfish and helps ourselves? Why is that a probelm?
<Mind> The first is better
<ChrisRovner> It sure is in the horizon, Roger
<staph> only a few need to get into space
<staph> a seed
<localroger> Case in point, the last great modality discovered, atomic weapons. No useful purpose, shrink the world, do not improve things one damn bit.
<Eliezer> Lazarus: because I think it's more beautiful to help others for the sake of helping others, and because I can't find a good reason to value sentients asymmetrically
<Lazarus_Long> I want a better world with hapier people to live with I don't mind if you think that is selfish
<localroger> Staph if only a few get into space it remains a zero sum game for those who stay behind.
<Lazarus_Long> beauty is in the eye of the beholder
<staph> but the few in space will become billions
<XxDoubleHelixX> Laz: We should help ourselves, a lot of people out there are lost causes.
<XxDoubleHelixX> in my opinion
<Lazarus_Long> It is also in the eye of teh creator
<localroger> I for one am not happy with the idea that living in a miserable hell is fine if we manage to get off some starseeds to spawn miserable hells all over the universe that will do the same thing.
<Lazarus_Long> I like helping becuase I want to create beauty
<Ocsrazor> localroger the last two great modality are the PC and the web
<staph> once a presence is established, space is a pretty ideal environment....
<Lazarus_Long> But I am selfish becasue I want to assert my right to reate
<Mind> I agree Eleizer...helping others for the sake of helping others is a much better.
<localroger> The PC and web aren't modalities. One could argue that the transistor was as important as nuclear fission.
<staph> is the protease inhibitor a modality?
<XxDoubleHelixX> Local: Thats why I think limiting birth is a must
<localroger> Staph, listen up: No matter who gets into space, if only a few get into space /what happens to those who stay behind/?
<Ocsrazor> and why aren't they modalities?
<localroger> XX: absolutely.
<staph> nothing
<Lazarus_Long> that is teh selfish of teh collective argument " the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
<staph> one 10 km asteriod in orbit.....
<Lazarus_Long> social selfishness
<XxDoubleHelixX> may be seen as dictator but when it comes down to it, its about parasite control
<staph> centuries of resources
<localroger> A modality is a "handle," a fundamental physical way of controlling the world like fire, electricity, or nuclear energy.
<Ocsrazor> and how do the PC and the web, etc not fit that definition
<localroger> If you go from campfires to airtight stoves it's not a new modality, just an improvement. If you make your airtight stove a boiler and attach it to a steam engine that's a new modality.
<staph> chemical, electromagnetic, and nuclear energy.... if we control gravity, do we have all modalities?
<Lazarus_Long> it is not altruistic though, it is just the collective is greater than individual rights model
<Mind> I feel that I am selfish as an immortalist, although I cannot pinpoint why I feel that way....I think it has something to do with my religious upbringing
<localroger> The PC and web did not involve fundamental physical discoveries and they have clear easily discernible (if large and far from achieved) limits.
<Mind> What is not altruistic Laz?
<Lazarus_Long> I ask again who has teh right to define the self?
<localroger> We do not control gravity and it doesn't look likely that we will in the near future.
<staph> you know, If I had this sort of pessimistic attitude I would be dead
<Eliezer> *I* want you all to live forever, and I'm an altruist, so if you trust my judgment, there's a quite nonselfish reason for you to do it
<Eliezer> sentients are valuable; you're sentient
<Lazarus_Long> Helping other just for the sake of helping others as preferable to helping them because I like to
<localroger> I am alive and highly successful because I have this pessimistic attitude. My competitors have been sued out of business for failing to ask the hard questions.
<Eliezer> I disagree that there is anything whatsoever selfish about immortality
<staph> right, and I would have died a year ago of cancer
<localroger> Eli, I tend to agree inasmuch as there is also nothing "selfish" about wishing to live to 80 instead of 40.
<Mind> Humans as a group define the "self" Laz
<XxDoubleHelixX> brain?
<Lazarus_Long> I am not presuming immortality is selfish but BJ asked about how it is perceived as selfish and this too merits an answer
<BJKlein> Laz, there are no rights granted.. or meaning.. we as intelligence creatures take the initiative
<Davidov> Once everyone starts to try to benefit the "collective", they're being, at least unintentionally, altruistic or exhibiting behavior akin to it. It's not hard to imagine post-humans realizing individuality is inefficient.
<Ocsrazor> LR, control of information is now far more important than control of "just" the physical stuff it represents
<staph> mind over matter is not magic...it is a result of close couplings between CNS and immune, endocrine systems
<Lazarus_Long> I define myself Mind
<Eliezer> Well, BJK actually wrote a defense of immortality as selfish
<Eliezer> which I am not at all in sympathy with
<Lazarus_Long> that is part of maturation Mind
<Eliezer> I don't think it's selfish, period
<localroger> OCR control of information means nothing if there is no control of "stuff" at the end.
<Discarnate> Eliezer - do you think your eating of food - another form of life - is selfish?
<Ocsrazor> thats is why I said "just" ;^)
<Eliezer> I think it would be much preferable to be off the food chain
<Lazarus_Long> but many of teh criticisms we are gettnig are from outsiders saying they see the quest for immortality as inherently selfish
<Discarnate> No argument, but that's sidestepping the question. *grin*
<Eliezer> if you're getting criticisms from outsiders about the selfishness of immortality, then explain how immortalism can stem from an altruistic love of all life
<Lazarus_Long> that is why I said when this topic was posted tht I wanted a new word, "selfist" as one that is self aware
<staph> or atheiests
<Mind> Laz brings up a good point about "outsiders" percieving selfishness in imortalists...how can we change their minds
<Discarnate> staph - I'd prefer the statement slightly differently - immortality is only a selfish goal if its attainment is at an unacceptable cost to others.
<BJK> Eli, if our goal is to live forever, we need as many people thinking along the same lines as possible. Therefore explaining the 'selfish' problem/percpetion is inherently important.
<staph> yeah, I;ll agree to that Dis
<Ocsrazor> all new technologies are supported because the wealthy want them, but you cannot stop there spread
<Eliezer> Discarnate: hm, less pithy, but I think more true
<Eliezer> BJK: yeah, but it's got to be explained correctly - and without conceding things that we shouldn't concede, for example, that "immortality is selfish", which it's not
<Lazarus_Long> Ocs but if this is controlled and locally distributed to create a new clan of pharoes then it will be seen as even MORE threatening
<staph> If all sentients have the *right* to be immortal if they choose, and such right does not take away rights of other sentients, then immortality is moral
<BJK> from the perception of most people definition of selfish, it is
<Ocsrazor> it won't happen Laz, our society is already far too democratized
<Mind> I figure every being on this planet is born with a will to live...so how can wanting to live longer be selfish?
<Sumadartsun> Immortality might be selfish if (1) there is a maximum number of people that can exist and (2) there are good reasons why it would somehow be better if other hypothetical people existed instead of you
<Ocsrazor> but it good happen with neural interfacing
<XxDoubleHelixX> unless the little buggers watnt us dead
<Lazarus_Long> promises promises we are talking about perceptions
<XxDoubleHelixX> <cough>
<XxDoubleHelixX> *want
<staph> Sum...exactly....then it is infringing on the rights of others
<localroger> Oops, gotta go
<Mind> Sumad...I do not think #1 holds....there should be no limit
<Lazarus_Long> immortality is seen as selfish if my continued existence is perceived to be devaluating your offsprings opportunities
<Ocsrazor> our system as a whole needs lots of sentients to continue to exist, there is just not much way around that
<XxDoubleHelixX> good point laz
<Sumadartsun> I don't like to say 'rights' here, staph
<XxDoubleHelixX> they will use that
<Ocsrazor> what if you choose not have offspring LAz?
<staph> what happens in all cultures yet observed that become wealthy with a large middle class?
<Lazarus_Long> is that forced or just a consequence of free choiceCos?
<BJK> but, shifting the argument from selfish to love of life would be a preferred strategy in any argument, i'd agree.
<Ocsrazor> free will
<Sumadartsun> Mind, I think (1) might be true but (2) very probably not
<Lazarus_Long> Oc*cam
<staph> Sum: ok
<Mind> I don't think it is that bad to devaluate someone else's offspring as long as they are allowed to live freely.
<staph> the Japanese, Germans, Swedish, etc etc.....
<XxDoubleHelixX> Then they will shift it to " They are taking away OUR childrens rights to seek jobs" have the big eyed kids sobing asking mom and dad "Why?"
<XxDoubleHelixX> <chuckle>
<Mind> People do things every day to devaluate my existence...as long as they do not kill me I am alright with that
<Lazarus_Long> But that is why it is seen as "selfish for the likes of Kass
<staph> are all shrinking in population
<Ocsrazor> as staph has said this is not a zero sum game
<Sumadartsun> in (1), I mean maximum number of people *at one time*
<staph> the USA only grows because of immigration (thank god)
<Ocsrazor> the more sentients you have, the more resources you have
<Lazarus_Long> Do imortals have to work for the common good forever or do they get to retire and go on endless cruises?
<Ocsrazor> intelligence is THE most valuable resource
<staph> ocs: yup, and the more resources, the more strongly the "law of acccelerating returns" *may* apply
<Discarnate> Back
<Ocsrazor> Laz would cruises really be satisfying across eternity?
<Lazarus_Long> If they are to know green pastures then does another working grop support them?
<Mind> Sumad...once there is a process for remaining alive...I do not see why it cannot be spread to all sentinents in a short period of time
<staph> both
<staph> cruises that do worthwile things
<Mind> so I think #1 does not hold
<Ocsrazor> Humans need goal driven activities to remian sane and happy
<Sumadartsun> staph: never mind, it just gets weird to speak of the rights of the not yet existent
<Discarnate> Mind - One simple reason why not - greed.
<staph> having a job doing what you love
<Lazarus_Long> Joking Occam my wink emoticon doesn't work
<Sumadartsun> Mind, agreed;
<Ocsrazor> Figured that Laz ;^)
<staph> Sum: yeah, thats true...
<Lazarus_Long> I am talking about choice folks you are pushing up stream againt the cultural meme of retirement
<Sumadartsun> but the part of the universe that can be reached might have a finite carrying capacity
<XxDoubleHelixX> So, "we are not selfish" and now we are talking about if more people is a good thing or bad thing...right?
<Lazarus_Long> the idea that you paid your dues and now get to coast
<celindra> Look, those who don't share the immortal meme, by definition, will die
<staph> but the meme of retirement is dying
<BJK> XxDoubleHelixX, don't let them fool ya.. we are selfish!
<Lazarus_Long> we are selfish if we say they have to live forever and contribute or die
<Mind> I agree Xxdouble...we are not selfish
<Ocsrazor> yep Laz that whole part of our society's psyche will have to be modified
<celindra> I'm pretty selfish
<staph> my father is 73... he retired at 65, after working all his life doing what he was good at
<MichaelA> hi all
<staph> he took like a week off and found another job
<staph> some people *have* to work
<Lazarus_Long> HI Michael
<Ocsrazor> staph what if he had the opportunity to do something else he loves for another 50 years?
<BJK> but, if you want to move public opinion, say you're not selfish
<Davidov> What is "selfish" is relative to how someone percieves what individuality is to one another, I guess.
<staph> he'd jump at the chance
<Sumadartsun> more people is a good thing, but we might just not have the computing power
<Ocsrazor> why not sum?
<Lazarus_Long> my father worked until he couldn't I plan the same but that is not the point it is about perceptions
<BJK> or divert the obvious to a more noble topic.. like the wonderful good we'll do by helping people overcome death and suffering
<celindra> I think you're looking at it the wrong way, BJ -- you sell the sizzle, not the steak -- show the public what they get!
<Discarnate> BJK - Perhaps point out we're LESS selfish than those who'd ONLY spend one lifetime at work!
<staph> a common perception.... people want happieness and pleasure....false
<ChrisRovner> Bruce, I hope you're being sarcastic
<Lazarus_Long> good approach celindra
<Mind> why is it false staph?
<Ocsrazor> why would he be sarcastic Chris
<ChrisRovner> Because we are not selfish
<staph> because people want a fulfilling life, and the appreciation of others
<Lazarus_Long> cheaper cosmetic surgery, full lifestuyles and more opportunity for individual growth but this is pragmatic not altruistic
<ChrisRovner> And we are not liars
<Ocsrazor> Ok misunderstood
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor, usual story about heat death, finite regions of space and so on
<BJK> no.. here's to kicker.. immortals are forced to be more helpful and alturitic by defaul of being immortal...longer term perspecitve, keeping friendly relations if you know you'll bump into someone again
<BJK> default.. and yes I was being sarcastic chris
<BJK> but, that was not my public front
<BJKlein> sorry, what was the last thing to come through>?
<Lazarus_Long> the villagers burn down the lab
<staph> self actualization I think its called
<Discarnate> Laz - VERY true.
<Sumadartsun> Ocsrazor: probably true,
<Ocsrazor> Laz, what is the frankenstein effect?
<Ocsrazor> Ohhh
<ChrisRovner> <BJK> no.. here's to kicker.. immortals are forced to be more helpful and alturitic by defaul of being immortal...longer term perspecitve, keeping friendly relations if you know you'll bump into someone again
<XxDoubleHelixX> put a big gun on the top and we will see who scews with who
<BJKlein> thanks chris.. and yes I was being sarcastic.. but that was not my public front
<XxDoubleHelixX> anyways...
<staph> that reminds me.... a true new modality.... highly effective non-lethal or permanent injuring means of crowd control
<Sumadartsun> but the questions actually apply at all times where population can't immediately grow
<Ocsrazor> Good PR is definitely a priority Laz
<Mind> Offering the end to aging seems to me like good PR
<Discarnate> Ocs - perhaps more of a priority than even research.
<Ocsrazor> Agreed Dis
<Mind> We can doth both at the same time
<XxDoubleHelixX> im not giving up research to talk to some godbots
<Mind> :-)
<Discarnate> Double - What good is the research if you can't use it?
<XxDoubleHelixX> ill wire myself to a virus stock
<Lazarus_Long> So the show of hand again please, immortalas are inherently selfish?
<Discarnate> <-- raises his hand
<Ocsrazor> We really need the anti-religion though DH, not like I'm giving up my research either, but it is on my mind frequently
<MichaelA> immortalists aren't inherently selfish, no more than someone who protects a beautiful flower from dying is selfish ;D
<Lazarus_Long> I suspect we haven 't yet all agreed one way or another,
<MichaelA> immortalists *can* be selfish if they label themselves as such
<Ocsrazor> better PR -> more political pressure -> more research $
<Lazarus_Long> Michael that is certainly selfish to the seeds
<staph> Eli (IIRC) once said something about every human death diminishes every living human
<Discarnate> Michael - as long as there is a cost to the action of being immortal, we're being selfish.
<MichaelA> you can define "selfish" to encompass practically everything if you try hard enough, but that doesn't grasp the spirit of the word
<Discarnate> And as far as I can see, there will *ALWAYS* be a cost.
<XxDoubleHelixX> Yes, but it sounded to me like the researchers would have to be involved with this
<Davidov> Selfish is relative to the person. Depends on either one's goals, too
<Davidov> It isn't necessarily a objective trait
<staph> we will not conquer death, but only because I think people will always want to die
<XxDoubleHelixX> leave it to the bio minors with bus degrees
<Ziana> discarnate- there's a cost to you choosing to be sitting here chatting online instead of out helping the homeless, yet here you are... ;-)
<MichaelA> Ziana, wow, hi
<Lazarus_Long> I agree that perception is probably the more important issue but like any product it is easier to sell if we believe what we are promoting
<Discarnate> *grin* Ah, but here, Ziana, I'm helping the world. Hopefully.
<Mind> exactly DIS
<Ocsrazor> I would like to be, I focus so much on info theory that I can't but think about how to get more sentients working on improving the condition of humanity
<Ziana> hiya michael
<Discarnate> Hoping to influence the minds of some of the great thinkers of the modern day...
<Lazarus_Long> nice to see you again Ziana
<Discarnate> *shrug* Dunno how good I am at it.
<MichaelA> many of the great thinkers are already here, maybe you're talking about the *well-known* thinkers
<staph> how about a #SL4, #immortal, and #virus breeding program
<Ocsrazor> we definitely need some people to step and counter the current direction of our pol insts
<staph> lol
<Discarnate> Ah, but others read the logs, and others are influenced via conversations with those present, or who read the logs... Contagion theory.
<Davidov> I'm in staph :D
<Mind> the pols are creating problems right now
<Ziana> staph- slight problem with that plan... ;-)
<staph> I;d be scared of the kids
<Lazarus_Long> Thereis an old addage, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, people need clear results not amorphous intentions
<staph> yeah, to few females
<Discarnate> Besides, we're all more than just genes.
<staph> means the nead for polyandry
<Discarnate> Laz - Disagree. People need PERCEPTION of clear results.
<Davidov> Well lets start with me and you Ziana
<Lazarus_Long> agreed Dis
<staph> a little twist on the old polygamy humans like so much
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh bush's people pulled aroudn 233 mill so we could have some anthrax vac.
* Ziana ain't volunteering, lol
<XxDoubleHelixX> sucks for that funding that could of actually done something
<staph> not even for like 5 husbands lol
<MichaelA> men like polygamy so much, not humans
<Ocsrazor> isn't that rediculous staph ;^)
<Lazarus_Long> but I am hoping for credibility not a scam
<staph> yup
<Ziana> five husbands? nah. now, if you offered five computers... ;-)
<Discarnate> Laz - I'm hoping for survival.
<XxDoubleHelixX> from the NIH or NIADH, whatever thats called
<staph> there are actually a few polyandrous socieites...
<Discarnate> <-- pessimistic. *sour grin*
<Eliezer> okay, I was wondering how long it would take some damn fool to jokingly proposition Ziana on one of these chat channels
<Ocsrazor> a girl who has her priorities straight
<Ocsrazor> ;^)
<staph> Ziana
<Ziana> lol
<Lazarus_Long> survival we must work hope is insufficient
<Eliezer> fortunately it took a very long time - maybe even over a year
<staph> how about 5 486's
<Eliezer> you probably can't say that on many other IRC channels
<Eliezer> but I still think we should have gone for a decade
<Ziana> alas, now the record is blown! ;-)
<Discarnate> Hrm... Double entendre?
<MichaelA> we probably beat every single server out there
<Ziana> enough 486s to add up to five P4s, sure ;-)
<Lazarus_Long> why are immortals hung up about gender related identification issues if they are no longer committed to bigender reproduction?
<XxDoubleHelixX> What Dis?
<Mind> have a good night...must sleep now
<Discarnate> Sorry - not you, DoubleHelix.
<MichaelA> because there are better things to commit to?
<staph> gender stuff can mess you up at this point
<MichaelA> there *may* be
<Lazarus_Long> Ageed staph but it won't disapperar as an exapmle of the threat the publis sense
<Discarnate> Until we DO have practical immortality, there's no other way to maintain the species. I'm all FOR gender related identification issues...
<Lazarus_Long> whoops public
<MichaelA> it's hard to avoid being identified as your gender without totally making a huge effort to convince people otherwise
<staph>
<MichaelA> if that's what you mean, heh
<Davidov> especially with tight clothes
<MichaelA> yes, but tight clothes are sort of silly
<staph> interestingly, transgenders call into question the common notion of 90% + heritablity of homosexuality
<Lazarus_Long> cloths are silly Michael if UI can wear a transmorph skin made of naofiber
<Ziana> down with tight clothes! ;-)
<Lazarus_Long> nanofiber*
<MichaelA> very true Laz
<Discarnate> *shakes head*
<Eliezer> switching between genders is a *lot* more work than wearing a skin
<Eliezer> there'd be a *lot* of cognitive work
<Eliezer> and more cognitive work if you wanted to stay sane after switching back
<MichaelA> to do so convincingly, your life would have to revolve around it
<Lazarus_Long> I wasn't worried about that elizer I would just like to be warm in any environment and breathe underwater
<Eliezer> even post-Singularity, switching between genders won't be a trivial decision, I think
<Eliezer> you'd have to be very spiritually advanced to just ranma back and forth
<Lazarus_Long> also absorb sunlight for energy needs
<MichaelA> that's an odd comment, Eliezer
<Discarnate> Michael - depends on the location. Via an online relationship? Nearly trivial.
<Eliezer> how so, Michael?
<Ocsrazor> eli interesting that our society is both becoming more gender neutral and polarizing at the same time
<MichaelA> if you stepped slightly above humanity intelligence-wise, I don't see how it would be difficult to switch back and forth between male and female psychologies
<Lazarus_Long> transgenderism is easier now than most people are comfortable
<MichaelA> I don't see how it would be spiritually taxing
<Eliezer> because there are two intelligent species on this planet, not one
<staph> ..... what about transspecies.... human to uplifted dolphin
<Eliezer> male to female *is* transspecies
<Discarnate> Now THAT will be odd, staph.
<Eliezer> real, different brainware
<staph> yeah
<Lazarus_Long> that may be down teh road a bit saph but not too far beyonf teh horizon
<MichaelA> yes, but the difference would shrink once you stepped a bit outside of both of them, no?
<Eliezer> not just a bit
<staph> or what about this: human to non-uplifted elephant (Leakey IMO figured this out a while ago).....
<Sumadartsun> I thought different species could not interbreed (by definition)
<Eliezer> on a cosmic scale, "just a bit", maybe
<Ocsrazor> yes Michael, once you could understand the cognitive processes and mimic them
<ChrisRovner> That doesn't mean it has to stay that way after the Singularity. My bet is that there will be thousands of different genders, and easily transitable
<Eliezer> from our perspective, "very spiritually advanced"
<MichaelA> say that humans have self-modification ability at 5%, where it takes a year for a 5% ability to produce a psychological gender transfer, if we upped our self-mod ability to 10% or more, wouldn't it be so much more trivial?
<MichaelA> oh, agreed
<Lazarus_Long> male to feamle is not transpecies, it is a physiopsychologica shift nothing more, resolved moer by behavioral roles than consciousness
<staph> sum: not interbreeding
<staph> remove brain and insert in cloned dolphin body
<Lazarus_Long> It is not too far fetched to make Womb bearing an optional activity
<MichaelA> Chris, my bet is that the degrees of freedom will open up in so many directions besides gender that it won't be a salient classification schema for beings anymore
<Ocsrazor> there is a lot of developmental information preprogrammed laz, in addition to cultural programmming
<Lazarus_Long> yes but a lot of that is carried on by the developmental placenta