Hacker News Reader

Comment by deertick1 | Hacker News Reader

Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain.

On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome.

I just think we'd better not even go there.

View on HN

> We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death.

Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument.

Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience.

Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?

Personally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no.

What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.

> What would be the point of creating new species?

I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head:

Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day.

Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.

Just to be clear about what evolution optimizes for: It’s propagation of genetic information.

Evolution is not kind. And evolution doesn’t optimize for happiness or even health beyond reproductive.

Evolution has produced plenty of humans who plead for death. We treat it as a disorder and try to fix it.

I’m wholeheartedly on board with (1) not creating more suffering and (2) reducing suffering. However I’m not convinced that evolution does better on either of those two fronts than empathetic humans.

Both of your objections are true for natural evolution.

> “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution”

Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.

Sure, but we can't stop those processes.

We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com