Snowyowl comments on Value Deathism - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 October 2010 06:20PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (118)
Tags: death preference future scope_insensitivity self_deception

Comments (118)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 December 2010 12:16:58AM 4 points [-]

We really do care more about the short-term future than the distant future.

How do you know this? It feels this way, but there is no way to be certain.

We have better control over the short-term future than the distant future.

That we probably can't have something doesn't imply we shouldn't have it.

We expect our values to change. Change can be good.

That we expect something to happen doesn't imply it's desirable that it happens. It's very difficult to arrange so that change in values is good. I expect you'd need oversight from a singleton for that to become possible (and in that case, "changing values" won't adequately describe what happens, as there are probably better stuff to make than different-valued agents).

As mentioned, an increasing immortal population means that our "rights" over the distant future must be fairly dilute.

Preference is not about "rights". It's merely game theory for coordination of satisfaction of preference.

If we don't discount the future, we run into mathematical difficulties. The first rule of utilitarianism ought to be KIFS - Keep It Finite, Stupid.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. --Einstein.

Comment author: timtyler 19 December 2010 11:42:07AM *  -2 points [-]

It's very difficult to arrange so that change in values is good. I expect you'd need oversight from a singleton for that to become possible (and in that case, "changing values" won't adequately describe what happens, as there are probably better stuff to make than different-valued agents).

We do seem to have an example of systematic positive change in values - the history of the last thousand years. No doubt some will argue that our values only look "good" because they are closest to our current values - but I don't think that is true. Another possible explanation is that material wealth lets us show off our more positive values more frequently. That's a harder charge to defend against, but wealth-driven value changes are surely still value changes.

Systematic, positive changes in values tend to suggest a bright future. Go, cultural evolution!

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit