@puellavulnerata Many primmies believe civ is 99.99% certain to be doomed. Later collapse means more death + fewer survivors.
-
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@rechelon Simply put, I'm not in the position to choose any of those outcomes, and if I were, I can't conceive of any response other than...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@rechelon ...to recoil in horror at the prospect of actively choosing to be on the causal path to mass death, regardless of...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@puellavulnerata They would retort (and I'd agree) that inaction is also on the causal path. All action or inaction is on causal path.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@rechelon What point in an ethical system defined for maximizing agency but constructed to constrain it all away unless you act unethically?3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@rechelon Is there any possible world where you say "Enough agency exists - now you are free to use yours for your own purposes" ?2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @puellavulnerata
@puellavulnerata But there ARE a lot of "well it would be computationally intractable to weigh A vs B vs C, so choose whatever!" situations2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rechelon
@rechelon@puellavulnerata does this set up a situation where being bad at predicting outcomes maximizes agency and is therefore desirable?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@rechelon @puellavulnerata deontological equivalent would be talmudic argument where the best outcome is preserving ambiguity (& so choice)
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.