In the long run, the most successful ideologies are going to be those that are best aligned with evolution. Unfortunately, evolution tends to be very unpleasant for its participants. At some point, we may have to choose between favoring ethics or life.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Also ethics is a wide field, and I don't see a need to choose between ethics and life; ethics is about right and wrong, and what you said is we might be forced to do the wrong thing according to some ethics. Ethics that doesn't properly weigh the fundamental value life is flawed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pavel23
What is the "proper weight" of the value of life? For instance, I value my fundamental integrity higher than my life. Do I have flawed ethics? What about anti-natalism?
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
In evolution theory life mainly exists for the purpose of carrying genes through time. The value of life from the viewpoint of the gene equals to how many good copies of the gene life helps to preserve for how long. Natural selection favors genes making such a value system emerge
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The purpose of life is the exploitation of negentropy gradients through controlled reactions. AI can in principle make cellular DNA based life obsolete, if it turns out to outcompete it at that game...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.