shminux comments on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: BarbaraB 26 May 2014 07:42AM

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

Comments (245)

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

Comment author: shminux 26 May 2014 06:08:33PM 6 points [-]

When uncertain what to do, keep your options open.

Right, I recall having the same thought, if fleeting. "Measure twice and cut once" and all that.

My main gripe with the story was actually the universal (across species) desire to impose one's morality on alien intelligences. This premise challenged my suspension of disbelief more than anything else in the story.

Comment author: Gav 27 May 2014 11:53:34AM 3 points [-]

"desire to impose one's morality on alien intelligences." Actually it wasn't quite universal. The Baby Eaters (for all their obvious flaws) only tried to change other people's minds by debate and discussion. I was a bit disappointed that humanity didn't try and take the alien poetic argument and respond to it. As pointed out, it likely wouldn't have been fruitful given the Baby Eaters neurology is largely built on recycled baby-eating circuitry, but still.

Although of course it could be argued that the reason why we didn't see the Baby Eaters actually impose their morality was they were the least technologically sophisticated of all 3 species.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 May 2014 09:36:13PM 0 points [-]

My main gripe with the story was actually the universal (across species) desire to impose one's morality on alien intelligences.

Well, do you think anyone wants to impose their morality on others? If so, why do they want this?

Comment author: shminux 28 May 2014 10:42:45PM 0 points [-]

You are the philosopher, why are you asking me? But we certainly love telling others what they are doing wrong, whether it affects us or not. "Live and let live" attitude is there, but not very popular. And non-existent in 3WC.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 May 2014 12:23:05AM 1 point [-]

Well, if I had to take a guess (at gunpoint, etc.) I suppose I would say that we try to impose our moral beliefs on other people because we think as a matter of fact that those others are already bound by those moral norms. And our imposition just consists in our trying to get them to acknowledge that fact.

But now that I put it that way, I've flipped myself around entirely and I wonder why anyone would wish to 'live and let live'? After all, if I am subject to a given moral norm, I'd certainly want to know about it.

Comment author: shminux 29 May 2014 12:34:20AM 0 points [-]

After all, if I am subject to a given moral norm, I'd certainly want to know about it.

With the caveat "but I already know about it, obviously, it's those savages who do not and need to be shown the light", just like in 3WC. Three repugnant (to me) species in one story, I've only now realized. Of course, it's likely that I'm simply pointing at the log in someone else's eye.

Comment author: blacktrance 29 May 2014 01:06:01AM 1 point [-]

Two repugnant species, I'd say. The Superhappies were right.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 May 2014 02:04:41PM 0 points [-]

Three repugnant (to me) species in one story, I've only now realized.

Hm! This may well be the problem with the story.

Comment author: somnicule 28 May 2014 04:01:09PM 0 points [-]

Is the desire to impose one's morality on alien intelligences surprising relative to the "Eliminate the alien species" option, or "Conduct trade with the alien species", or "Avoid the alien species as much as possible"?

Comment author: shminux 28 May 2014 08:15:11PM -2 points [-]

None of the above. Human cultures used to be pretty good at "let those other weirdos do what they want, as long as they don't bother us" until certain proselytizing religions came along.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 29 May 2014 06:29:02AM 10 points [-]

I thought the more usual practice throughout history was "we don't care what those other weirdos want, we want their land".

Comment author: fubarobfusco 29 May 2014 03:10:08AM *  4 points [-]

I'm not convinced. Proselytization — and even forced conversion — seem to have been a less violent alternative to the previous human habit of killing all the adults and boys, taking the virgin girls as rape slaves, and eradicating the culture of "those other weirdos" when a military advantage can be had.

Moses was angry with the officers of the army [...] who returned from the battle. [...] "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."Numbers 31:14,17-18

Comment author: Lumifer 29 May 2014 04:18:57PM *  3 points [-]

Human cultures used to be pretty good at "let those other weirdos do what they want, as long as they don't bother us" until certain proselytizing religions came along.

That's just not true at all.

Look at studies of warfare in "stone-age" tribes, e.g. in the Amazon or New Guinea. It's low-intensity but pretty constant.

Or look at the Vikings. Or the Mongol horde. How do you think the Roman Empire got so big? Etc, etc.

Comment deleted 29 May 2014 04:55:39PM *  [-]
Comment author: Lumifer 29 May 2014 05:04:23PM 0 points [-]

What the tribes cared little about is other tribes' treatment of their own members.

That did NOT change when "certain proselytizing religions came along." Tribes fought for power and resources; they still fight for power and resources, PR efforts notwithstanding.