![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weird discussion
May. 20th, 2011 05:50 pmOver the past few days I've had the strangest discussion with several people.
It began when one pessimistic and rather sour person mentioned that he was convinced that Artificial Intelligences (AIs) would one day exterminate humanity. I couldn't resist responding by pointing out how we are growing smarter and more peaceful and more morally responsible with each generation. The Flynn Effect documents a rise in intelligence and it is easy to see increases in peace and morality so long as you don't let newspapers or TV brainwash you with their bullshit. I suggested that as these three things (intelligence, peacefulness, and morality) seem to go hand in hand it seems unlikely that super-intelligent AIs would destroy us. More likely is that they would help us... unless the military develop Terminators. Even then it might happen that super-intelligent AIs might realise how stupid war is and simply refuse to kill.
There was much disagreement, much of it centering around whether ethics and morality could even be defined. I pointed to Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" and his TED talk on the topic, thinking that these are rational computer-oriented people, but boy, was I surprised at the response.
There was an amazing knee-jerk reaction because Sam Harris dared to say that forcing women to wear burkas was wrong. Who was he to dictate to other cultures what they should do? I pointed out, time and time again, that he didn't say there was anything wrong with women wearing burkas if they wanted to. He was against forcing people to do things. But I had to keep bringing the discussion back to what Sam Harris was actually saying. They kept putting really silly words in his mouth. I honestly don't get this desire to be so paralysed by moral relativism that we refuse to admit when things are bad even when they are clearly so. And I don't understand why anybody would have anything against creating a science that could objectively give us a measuring stick for well-being, and thereby morality. It would save us from all the crazy contradictory rules of religions, tradition, and culture. We would finally have the rationale to deliver well-being to all people everywhere because religion or custom would no longer be sufficient reason to oppress anybody. Whether it was women in islamic culture, or gays in christian culture. We would finally have a way to say, "No. The well-being of this person is measurably lowered by your actions. It needs to be fixed." At the moment other people can accuse Westerners of meddling in their culture, and here in the West christians say we have to respect their religious convictions. If there was a science of morality we would have a chance to free everybody.
I was astounded. Moral relativism has become such a powerful paralysing force that people are unwilling to speak about quite revolting practices.
Along the way, one person (actually quite a pleasant guy) posted sadly deluded stuff about the 2012 end-of-the-world crap and comet Elenin conspiracy stuff. Oh dear. I have another friend in England who is sucked in by this silly conspiracy stuff.
All this is rather depressing. [sigh]
Oh well, maybe it is what I need to give me a kick in the pants to get back to working on my 3D stuff again. I have been terribly slack about it lately... partly because I stumbled across a gold-mine of information in the YouTube channel of Brightstorm2 which has more than two thousand short videos about science and maths. So I've been gulping down much of the stuff I missed in High School when daydreaming. Most of the stuff I already know, but I've learned a few things (such as the reason why alternating currents lose less power than direct current when sending over long distances -- always puzzled me). Yay!
Oh! And in other news, I have my rough story idea for NaNoWriMo this year. I'm considering doing it a bit differently this time by not adhering strictly to the rules. I might start early. This time for me it will be more about getting the story done well instead of being in a race with myself to complete in a given time.
It began when one pessimistic and rather sour person mentioned that he was convinced that Artificial Intelligences (AIs) would one day exterminate humanity. I couldn't resist responding by pointing out how we are growing smarter and more peaceful and more morally responsible with each generation. The Flynn Effect documents a rise in intelligence and it is easy to see increases in peace and morality so long as you don't let newspapers or TV brainwash you with their bullshit. I suggested that as these three things (intelligence, peacefulness, and morality) seem to go hand in hand it seems unlikely that super-intelligent AIs would destroy us. More likely is that they would help us... unless the military develop Terminators. Even then it might happen that super-intelligent AIs might realise how stupid war is and simply refuse to kill.
There was much disagreement, much of it centering around whether ethics and morality could even be defined. I pointed to Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" and his TED talk on the topic, thinking that these are rational computer-oriented people, but boy, was I surprised at the response.
There was an amazing knee-jerk reaction because Sam Harris dared to say that forcing women to wear burkas was wrong. Who was he to dictate to other cultures what they should do? I pointed out, time and time again, that he didn't say there was anything wrong with women wearing burkas if they wanted to. He was against forcing people to do things. But I had to keep bringing the discussion back to what Sam Harris was actually saying. They kept putting really silly words in his mouth. I honestly don't get this desire to be so paralysed by moral relativism that we refuse to admit when things are bad even when they are clearly so. And I don't understand why anybody would have anything against creating a science that could objectively give us a measuring stick for well-being, and thereby morality. It would save us from all the crazy contradictory rules of religions, tradition, and culture. We would finally have the rationale to deliver well-being to all people everywhere because religion or custom would no longer be sufficient reason to oppress anybody. Whether it was women in islamic culture, or gays in christian culture. We would finally have a way to say, "No. The well-being of this person is measurably lowered by your actions. It needs to be fixed." At the moment other people can accuse Westerners of meddling in their culture, and here in the West christians say we have to respect their religious convictions. If there was a science of morality we would have a chance to free everybody.
I was astounded. Moral relativism has become such a powerful paralysing force that people are unwilling to speak about quite revolting practices.
Along the way, one person (actually quite a pleasant guy) posted sadly deluded stuff about the 2012 end-of-the-world crap and comet Elenin conspiracy stuff. Oh dear. I have another friend in England who is sucked in by this silly conspiracy stuff.
All this is rather depressing. [sigh]
Oh well, maybe it is what I need to give me a kick in the pants to get back to working on my 3D stuff again. I have been terribly slack about it lately... partly because I stumbled across a gold-mine of information in the YouTube channel of Brightstorm2 which has more than two thousand short videos about science and maths. So I've been gulping down much of the stuff I missed in High School when daydreaming. Most of the stuff I already know, but I've learned a few things (such as the reason why alternating currents lose less power than direct current when sending over long distances -- always puzzled me). Yay!
Oh! And in other news, I have my rough story idea for NaNoWriMo this year. I'm considering doing it a bit differently this time by not adhering strictly to the rules. I might start early. This time for me it will be more about getting the story done well instead of being in a race with myself to complete in a given time.