Even my Arduino had intelligence, but I switched off the power.
Just turn down the simulation speed real low and run it at one tick per 20 years, then you can technically keep it going without such great expense. The people inside won’t notice the difference.
“Now playing human music, on Earth Radio”
Hahahaha. Eat apple!
If you take the limit of that you’ll realize that people won’t raise if you turn it off either.
I apply ethics only to those who I consider equal or better. So the full answer from my standpoint would be: “Yes, it would be unethical, but this fact won’t stop me from ending the simulation if I don’t need it anymore.”
How do you get to the point where you consider someone to be inferior to you?
Being stupider is enough to be considered inferior. It is more complicated, but overall intelligence is the main criteria.
Being stupider
So nobody ever has to worry? Good to know.
criteria
lol
Would killing babies or elderly people be okay then? They can both be much more ignorant than the average person.
No, it wouldn’t. I leave it to you to figure out why.
I mean they are “stupider”, at least the babies. Wouldn’t that be enough to be considered inferior in your book?
Wouldn’t that be enough to be considered inferior in your book?
It is always useful to take into the account a “credit of trust” toward babies and aknowledge of previous achievements if we talk about elders. You see, most of local moralists are American racists, so whatever they hear they apply to their sick racist worldview. So whatever they hear they try to apply to divide HUMANS. I wasn’t talk about humans. Most humans (except clinically ill) have +- the comparable level of intellect, so I consider them +- equal to me.
You were referring to non-human animals then?
The ethics of a slave owner.
So if a more advanced alien race came over and started torturing and butchering humans, by your logic you’d be perfectly OK with that.
No, I am not OK with me being “tortured and butchered”. I’m not sure if you do understand how to use logic.
Do explain then.
He can’t, he’s merely an unprincipled edgelord.
You’re either a psychopath or an edgy teen (overlapping affairs though).
That’s a dangerous line of reasoning. Depending on who you ask, people won’t consider a lot of things “equal or better”.
In no particulary order, a lot of people would not apply ethics to: Animals in general, pets, children, woman or all people of different ethnicitiy, religion or even political views.
I’d argue that ethics should be applied to all living things. Well, at least all things capable of suffering, but that keeps people arguing again - doctors even used to think that human babies aren’t fully capable of that.
Regarding the original question: The simulation isn’t alive. Stopping it won’t ‘kill’ it, assuming it can be resumed. Deleting it, however, argubly is be unethical, yet it does not cause suffering at the very least.
I’d argue that ethics should be applied to all living things.
So what do you eat then?
I’m vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it’s the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also “applying ethics” does not mean it’s automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking “it’s okay because I’m something better”.
Applying ethics isn’t saying that it’s unethical.
I’m making this distinction because the post he’s replying to said they “only applied ethics to their equals or betters”, which is appalling: it’s not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to “lesser beings”.
Regarding your point, I think it’s widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don’t tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Since “veganism” is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I’m not sure most vegans would say it’s ethical even when there’s no other option, but they probably wouldn’t judge either way.
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society’s definition.
I’m sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we’re in agreement 🤝
Makes sense, misunderstood you there.
Dead things.
Thoughts on disabled people?
How do you define intelligence? In any case, I think it’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is whether the beings are self aware or if they exist having notions and concepts of fear of death. For this reason, I deem it unethical to slaughter - for instance - animals in a setting in which their peers are aware of the moment of death of their peers. Seeing, for instance, a cow agonize about their peer in front of them being shot to death is heart-wrenching. For this reason, my answer to your question is “yes”. Yes I eat meat. :3
You got me curious, you seem to feel some way about slaughtering animals, but that doesn’t seem to translate into your actions being aligned with your feelings.
Would you care to talk about it?
I’ll be honest I have reduced my meat/dairy/egg consumption significantly, but every once in a while I’m not the one cooking at home and I don’t really feel able to go on a side quest while hungry.
It’s not that complicated in my case. Ideologically, I want us - humanity - to move toward vegetarianism. First and foremost because of how unethical I find the production of animals, and secondary for the sake of the environment. I’m just too lazy to actually act on this. I had a two year vegetarian streak when I lived in Japan. I ate meat only if and when I ate out, mainly because Japanese restaurants are not quite informed on vegetarianism and seem to believe that the meal is vegetarian as long as it doesn’t consist of a chunk of meat - which is sad, because Japan has a long history of veganism in their various Buddhist offshoots, but that’s another story. At home, I only cooked vegetarian, although not vegan. It was cheap and easy to find meat replacements, mostly soy based.
Funny, I’m somewhat in the opposite position, when I eat out I always order vegan/vegetarian since it’s usually cheaper and doesn’t require any special effort on my part, but when cooking I might still eat animal parts once in a while since I don’t cook only for myself and can’t always cook twice.
…I hear Tuvix calling in the wind…
“Leooooolaaaaaa rooooot …”
…leola root is potatoes…i cannot be wrong
Depends, are they sentient? If they are conscious beings, yeah I think it would be unethical to mass murder them
no, because if you dont use the kill switch you get The Ring happening.
Is that “the ring” cannon or are you just yes anding?
“cannon”?
Uhh, like part of the story.
Cannon is a thing you shoot big lumps of exploding metal to the distance of tens of kilometers.
Canon is the thing with the plots and stories. Also, a camera.
Ohh, I can see how you could be totally confused becuase im the dumb one.
Don’t worry about it. From what I’ve seen, about 75% of people make the same mistake lol.
In my experience it’s far higher. That and “rouge” seem to be very common misspellings.
Im not worried about it. Obviously.
That’s canon.
Yeah, cabin. Like I said.
Exactomudo, knishy.
Chekhov’s cannon.
that is the premise of the books that the film was based on.
Hmm. I thought samara was behind it all. Interesting
It would be unethical to start the simulation in the first place…
only way to know would be to enter the simulation and see for yourself… wait a minute…
Yes because then your car battery won’t start
There is a tv film, i don’t know the title, related about this topic.
The plot was :
a group of scientists made a living simulation, and go in the simulation to operate fixes and prevent making simulation. On day, one the scientific was killed, and left a message in the simulation for their coworkers. The message was : “take a road and follow no direction”, a guy in the simulation followed the instruction and discovered that he was in a simulation, but the message were for the scientists who are in a simulation too.
If someone can find the movie, it could be great.
In 2000, The Thirteenth Floor was nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film but lost to The Matrix.
Yeah that’s a pretty good sell. I’ll check it out.
and go in the simulation to operate fixes and prevent making simulation.
Pardon?
The ethics which we use today evolved out of practical ethics - that is to say, it’s evolved out of a need for a set of rules meant to be applied in order dictate the conduct of humans amongst one another. Because of this, I think most ethical frames of reference are ill-suited for trying to answer this question soundly.
It seems analogous to trying to apply traditional physics to a quantum reference frame. It’s outside traditional Physics’s wheelhouse. A different set of tools likely needs to be applied, which has a different starting paradigm.
That being said, your answer is really going depend on what this new ethic’s paradigm is, which is arguably completely arbitrary in this specific case.
Found God’s account
Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!
the simulacrants wouldn’t realize the simulation is ever not running.
Kurzgesagt made a video about how in a dying universe (from heat death) civilizations that uploaded their consciousness into a simulation could live forever, by intermittently running the simulation and pausing it for greater and greater amounts of time as expendable energy in the universe diminishes. The consciousness would not perceive the time the simulation isn’t running and to them things just go on and on for eternity.
Now imagine an eternal being sitting in a cold planet and seeing the starts fade one by one, until there is nothing to see… And then be there, conscious forever. Alone. In the dark.
What I find interesting is how we abstract away the actual work needed to keep either scenario running reflects how billionaires justify their own extremes. The heat death being a most extreme example as there is no “spare” energy for other organism to be conscious. The uploaded consciousness is detached from reality, living in a dieing universe, and still insists it has a right to exist at the cost of new venues of consciousness.
Intelligence isn’t the important factor there - consciousness is. Does it feel like something to be those entities in the simulation? If yes, then I’d argue that ending the simulation is like killing a person painlessly in their sleep.
I personally don’t think ending the simulation is even the most troubling part. We could unintentionally create a simulation that’s effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don’t realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
We could unintentionally create a simulation that’s effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don’t realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
And this is basically the plot of the TV series Severance. Has me wondering how they intend to address it.
Didn’t scientists train brain cells to exclusively play Doom? It’s like their whole conscience is stuck in a video game version of hell through a brain in a vat experience.
Not really. It’s not nearly enough cells to have any kind of consciousness as we know it. A few neurons learning to play a game is a far cry from tying a being into a simulation of hell.
I dunno. Some life forms have only a few brain cells. It could mean their whole world for those little cells, wouldn’t it?
It is definitely their entire world, but the point is it takes far more than a few cells to create actual human-relatable sentience.
That’s coming from someone who fully understands and knows that many more animals than most humans care to admit also have sentience.
Those petri dishes are not sentient nor conscious.
The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
Antinatalism entered the chat
Or maybe just well reasoned morality?
