taw comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: BarbaraB 18 April 2012 12:31:29PM 4 points [-]

"Choosing infanticide over abandonment is pretty pointless, so why do it?" "Killing another living thing doesn't qualify as "euthanasia" if you do it for your benefit, not that being's."

  • Let me respond by a little story telling, without making a clear point. I am not proving You wrong, just sharing my personal experience. Warnings: depressive stories about ilnesses, probably bad reading.

I once was a friend with a boy with a progressive muscular dystrophy. It is a degenerative disease, where gradually, Your muscles stop working, and at the age of cca 20, most patients die, because they stop breathing. If You have heard great stories about people on the wheelchair getting adapted to their situation, well, here adaptation can be only shorterm, because next year, You might not be able of doing what you can do now. The pain was not excruciating but there was some, the body which is deprived of excercise gives You this feedback. If he had a bad dream at night, he could not turn to the other side (a very usual remedy, most people do it without even realizing). The boy had 2 suicide attempts, although, frankly, he did not really mean them. He would make phonecalls to his friends in the evening to relieve his pain - very unwelcome calls. I sometimes pretended not to be at home, and I know other people who did the same (We were in our twenties). Then, his desperation was deepened by feeling he is not loved. Once he was calling his psychologist, and caught her in the middle of a suicide attempt, poisoned by drugs - she repeated to him HIS previous statements from the previous phonecalls. I am not saying it was HIS fault, the lady clearly failed to safeguard the known risks of her profession (plus had other problems, departed partner etc.) I am just illustrating how hard it was sometimes to deal with him. (He called other people who saved her life, to close up this branch of the story). His parents took great care of him up to the level of their financial abilities, plus using the limited help of our government. There were frequent conflicts between him and his parents, though, and made him feel unloved, again. On the other hand, his parents were deeply religious and, knowingly, had another baby with the same genetic defect later, they did not choose abortion. The older boy has died at the age of 28, his life being surprisingly long.

This story clearly contains aspects, which were not optimized, the parents could have earned more money and bring more comforts to his lives, he could have gotten a personal assistant at night, more physiotherapy excercises, a better computer, some lectures how to deal with people and get a girlfriend (his desires were strong), he could have tried harder to develop his talents and get a job, which would make him feel useful to society. (We persuaded him to get a job eventually, phone operator, lasted 1 year or so). His friens, including me, could have worked harder on their emotional maturity. But, can You see all the energy and resources to make a misery somewhat better ?

Now let us see a different story, where the parents of a sick child became EXTREME optimizers. Watch the film Lorenzo's Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo%27s_Oil_%28film%29) or read about Lorenzo Odone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_Odone). Wonderful and admirable story. But can You see the end result, after You do all that is in Your power for Your baby ?

"Choosing infanticide over abandonment is pretty pointless, so why do it?" Abandoning a baby with a severe genetic defect at birth condemnes the baby to even lower quality of life in most government institutions, unless a millionaire chooses to adopt him.

I have a counterargument to my own reasoning right away - what if some parents killed their baby diagnosed with adrenoleukodystrophy (but with no developed symptomps yet) a year before Augusto and Michaela Odone invented the Lorenzo's Oil for their son ? Such parents would have lost a potentially healthy baby, the baby would lose a realistic chance to live their normal life...

I am not really trying to win this argument, just explaining, why I sometimes TOY with the idea of infanticide being not so immoral, and considering it a form of euthanasia.

Comment author: taw 18 April 2012 07:11:54PM 2 points [-]

There's plenty of diseases we can now deal with quite well because we didn't infanticide or murder everyone who had them. This isn't a coincidence that a treatment is found, if we killed everyone with a disease there would be no search for treatment.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 09:08:17PM 3 points [-]

Is this one of those "torture one person for 50 years" versus "deaths of millions" thought experiments?

Comment author: wedrifid 18 April 2012 09:28:20PM 3 points [-]

Is this one of those "torture one person for 50 years" versus "deaths of millions" thought experiments?

Easiest thought experiments ever?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 18 April 2012 10:13:11PM 7 points [-]

Would you rather be tortured for 3^^^3 years, or have a dust speck in your eye?

Comment author: wedrifid 18 April 2012 10:23:39PM 2 points [-]

Would you rather be tortured for 3^^^3 years, or have a dust speck in your eye?

If I use UDT2 can I choose 'both'?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 April 2012 10:44:52PM 2 points [-]

This seems like a good "control" thought experiment to determine whether people are just being contrarian.

Comment author: Nornagest 18 April 2012 10:48:46PM 7 points [-]

I think you'd have to be a pretty unsubtle contrarian to answer that with "torture".

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 06:09:17PM *  3 points [-]

And yet, at least one person below did just that. Edit: ...but later asserted that had been a joke.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 11:50:15PM 4 points [-]

I think in this case you can drop the suffix and just say "being contrary".

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2012 05:13:11PM 2 points [-]

More like, to determine whether people are paying any attention. (I once took an online personality test which included questions such as “I've never eaten before” to prevent people from using bots or similar to screw up their data.)

Comment author: ciphergoth 20 April 2012 06:51:41AM 2 points [-]

It's hard to get people to answer such things straightforwardly. I once included "Some people have fingernails" in a poll, as about the most uncontroversially true thing I could think of, and participants found a way to argue that it wasn't true - since "some" understates the proportion.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2012 12:42:36AM 2 points [-]

Well... Some people does usually implicate ‘not all people, and not even all people except a non-sizeable minority’, but if we go by implicatures rather than literal meanings, X has fingernails (in contexts where everyone knows X is a human), in my experience at least, usually implicates that X's fingernails are not trimmed nearly as short as possible, since the literal meaning would be quite uninformative once you know X is a human.

Comment author: shokwave 20 April 2012 08:08:16AM 1 point [-]

"There exists at least one X that ..." is what logicians have settled on as the most easily satisfiable and least objectionable phrasing.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2012 05:37:43PM *  -1 points [-]

That's not that easy, unless having a dust speck in my eye also entails my living for 3^^^3 years.

Comment author: thomblake 19 April 2012 06:23:21PM 7 points [-]

I nominate ABrooks as this month's contrarian.

Comment author: steven0461 20 April 2012 01:59:13AM 2 points [-]

This is another great example of a comment that should have been silently downvoted, not responded to.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 20 April 2012 03:28:07AM 1 point [-]

I generally avoid downvoting comments that are direct responses to me. I'm not exactly sure why, beyond a sense that it just feels wrong, although I can justify it in a number of different ways that I'm pretty sure aren't my real reasons.

Comment author: Nornagest 20 April 2012 03:37:40AM *  1 point [-]

I do the same. The reasoning that comes to mind is that the timing tends to imply that you did it, and that that -- especially if you're already in an adversarial mode -- can provoke a cycle of retaliation that's harmful to your karma and doesn't carry much informative value. Short of that, I feel it carries adversarial implications that're harmful to the quality of discussion.

I'm reasonably sure that that's my true objection.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 20 April 2012 01:18:02PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's plausible in my case as well. Evidence in favor of it is that I do become mildly anxious when people who are responding to me get downvoted by others, which suggests that I fear retaliation.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 April 2012 12:29:19AM 1 point [-]

I thought that too, but I assumed I'd die right after being tortured anyway. And I'd rather live to age n without ever being tortured than live to age n + m being tortured for m years.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 05:46:14PM 1 point [-]

Wait, what?

To clarify:
A = Dust speck in your eye, and your life is otherwise as it would have been without this deal.
B = 3^^^3 years of torture, followed by death.

Is that an easy choice for you?
If not, can you summarize your arguments in favor of choosing B?

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2012 05:52:10PM *  6 points [-]

If not, can you summarize your arguments in favor of choosing B?

Well, if I choose B, I'll be alive for a very large number of years. I'll be alive so long, that I expect that I'll get used to anything deployed to torture me. And I'll be alive so long, I'd need to study a fair amount of cosmology just to understand what my lifetime will involve, by way of the deaths and rebirths of whole universes or whatever. Some of that would be interesting to see.

The easy thought experiment would be dust speck vs. 3 years of torture followed by death. I think there, I'd go with the speck.

Comment author: Vaniver 19 April 2012 06:50:10PM *  13 points [-]

I'll be alive so long, that I expect that I'll get used to anything deployed to torture me.

Is this based on the experience of torture victims? I think that "get used to" would more closely resemble "catatonic" than "unperturbed." I don't think your ability to be interested would survive very long.

Comment author: siodine 20 April 2012 01:39:10AM 3 points [-]

I wonder if there's a case study of an individual that's been exposed to prolong torture. Probably have to look through Nazi and Japanese experiments.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 April 2012 01:31:13AM 6 points [-]

(takes deep breath)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE

sorry, I just had to scream for a bit

Comment author: shminux 20 April 2012 03:47:19AM 2 points [-]

Them dust specks hurtin'?

Comment author: [deleted] 20 April 2012 02:51:18AM 0 points [-]

I...um. Are you agreeing with me? Or did I say something stupid?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 06:07:42PM 0 points [-]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

Comment author: thomblake 19 April 2012 05:51:27PM *  0 points [-]

An obvious argument in favor of B is that you get to live for 3^^^3 years. A reframing:

A = Dust speck in your eye, after which you read a normal life except that you cease to exist a mere 60 years later.
B = Tortured for the rest of your life, but you never die.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 April 2012 12:23:02AM *  1 point [-]

B is just the traditional idea of hell, isn't it? (IIRC, the present-day Catholic Church's idea is that hell is just the inability to see God.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 April 2012 06:11:38PM *  0 points [-]

(nods) That seemed the obvious argument, as you say, though it depends on the notion that being tortured for a year is a net utility gain (relative to not existing for that year at all), which seemed implausible to me. But it turns out that is indeed what ABrooks meant.

(shrug) No accounting for taste.

Edit: He later asserted that had been a joke.

Comment author: orthonormal 20 April 2012 03:03:41PM 1 point [-]

Note that you're arguing that your preferred policy can never have true drawbacks, rather than arguing that it's worth it on balance. Be careful.

Comment author: taw 20 April 2012 09:02:33PM 0 points [-]

Policy of not mass murdering people is as close to drawback-free as it gets.

I'm sure you can figure out some trivial drawbacks if you want.

Comment author: Nornagest 20 April 2012 09:30:16PM *  1 point [-]

Doesn't appreciably constrain your behavior, though, unless you happen to be the star of a popular Showtime series or something. Declaring a policy is only meaningful if it actually affects your choices, which in this case only makes sense if you expect to be considering mass murder as a solution to your problems.

And in a situation as extreme as that, I wouldn't be surprised if some otherwise unthinkable subjective downsides came up.