TheOtherDave comments on A (small) critique of total utilitarianism - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 26 June 2012 12:36PM

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

Comments (237)

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

Comment author: Mass_Driver 28 June 2012 04:07:04AM 0 points [-]

I should clarify that by "fill" I don't mean "tile." I'm operating from the point of view where my species' preferences, let alone my preferences, fill less than 1 part in 100,000 of the resource-rich volume of known space, let alone theoretically available space. if that ever changed, I'd have to think carefully about what things were worth doing on a galactic scale. It's like the difference between decorating your bedroom and laying out the city streets for downtown -- if you like puce, that's a good enough reason to paint your bedroom puce, but you should probably think carefully before you go influencing large or public areas.

I would also wonder if some new thing made me incredibly happy if perhaps it was designed to do that by someone or something that isn't very friendly toward me. I would suspect a trap. I'd want to take appropriate precautions to rule out that possibility.

With those two disclaimers, though, yes. If I discovered fnord tomorrow and fnord made me indescribably happy, then I'd suddenly want to put a few billion fnords in the Sirius Sector.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 28 June 2012 01:34:10PM 2 points [-]

(nods) Makes sense.
If I offered to, and had the ability to, alter your brain so that something that already existed in vast quantities -- say, hydrogen atoms -- made you indescribably happy, and you had taken appropriate precautions to rule out the possibility that I wasn't very friendly towards you and that this wasn't a trap, would you agree?

Comment author: Mass_Driver 29 June 2012 12:02:06AM 0 points [-]

Sure! That sounds great. Thank you. :-)