= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Savulescu: "Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (193)
I don't think pre-modern catastrophes are relevant to this discussion.
The point about the anthropic issues are well taken, but I still contend that we should be skeptical of over-hyped predictions by supposed experts. Especially when they propose solutions that (apparently, to me) reduce 'freedoms.'
There is a grand tradition of them failing.
And, if we do have the anthropic explanation to 'protect us' from doomsday-like outcomes, why should we worry about them?
Can you explain how it is not hypocritical to consider anthropic explanations relevant to previous experiences but not to future ones?
Observation that you current exist trivially implies that you haven't been destroyed, but doesn't imply that you won't be destroyed. As simple as that.
I can't observe myself getting destroyed either, however.
When you close your eyes, the World doesn't go dark.
The world probably doesn't go dark. We can't know for sure without using sense data.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pb/belief_in_the_implied_invisible/