A simple moral principle: when a future change is framed as a problem which we might hope our political system to solve, then the only acceptable reason to talk about the consequences of failing to solve that problem is to scare folks ...
So Robin Hanson is now complaining that people are interpreting his “neutral analysis” of the whole exploited-brain-emulations, extinct-humans possibility as
expressing disloyalty to the system and hostility toward those who will suffer from that failure [to prevent it] ... I’ve personally focused on just describing this situation ... Apparently it isn’t just taboo to assume that we’ll fail to solve a problem; it can also be taboo to merely describe a problem without recommending a solution.
Yeah, so here’s Hanson in January, responding to a review that called his vision “dystopian”:
I instead say that most ems work and leisure in virtual worlds of spectacular quality, and that ems need never experience hunger, disease, or intense pain, nor ever see, hear, feel, or taste grime or anything ugly or disgusting. Yes they’d work most of the time but their jobs would be mentally challenging, they’d be selected for being very good at their jobs, and people can find deep fulfillment in such modes. We are very culturally plastic, and em culture would promote finding value and fulfillment in typical em lives. In addition, I estimate that most humans who have ever lived have had lives worth living, in part because of this cultural plasticity.
And here he is three years ago, in a post titled “Civilization Vs. Human Desire”:
Yes, our descendants may not share today’s moral sense, or remember us and our art as much as most of us might like. But they will want something, often get it, and there may be so so many of them. And that could be so very good, by my lights.
So I say let us venture on, out of control, into the great and perhaps terrible civilization that we may become.
Yes, it might be even better if a few forward looking elites could at least steer civilization modestly away from total destruction. But I fear that once substantial steering-abilities exist, they may not stay modest.
... arguing that we should risk "total destruction” in order to bring about his em-world in the future.
Hanson writes that
This week I talked on my book to a sharp lively group organized by Azeem Azhar ... I tried to present the situation as something that you might consider to be a problem ... Even with this reframing, several people saw me as still violating the key taboo.
Maybe the problem is just that people can tell when you’re lying to them?
