Hacker News Reader

Comment by O____________O | Hacker News Reader

(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)

I've always thought this part was, by far, the most likely. It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering. It's the same thing that's caused me to shift from "I don't believe in god" to "I believe there probably isn't a god". For example, infants have been raped in Africa due to the virgin cleansing myth, and every year thousands of people kill themselves due to unmanageable misery. Not to mention the way that so many people die of "natural" causes, e.g. drowning in their own phlegm only to be revived by hospital staff for another go-around.

View on HN

>It would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering

Well .. is it though?

What if everything is so blissful and boring in the future that people intentionally torture themselves for decades at a time by experiencing "Earth-sim" so that they can build character / enjoy the utopia they've created? Or maybe this simulation is the rehabilitation track for criminals? There are a number of reasons to "suffer" and suffering shouldn't be cast out as unethical because we don't like it in the current context.

There are a number of reasons to "suffer" and suffering shouldn't be cast out as unethical because we don't like it in the current context.

Please do provide some reasons why raping a day-old newborn infant wouldn't be considered unethical.

There's a Greg Egan novel where one character is invited to work to help build such a simulation. The character is shocked that the simulation creator was aware of the issue of suffering, and had plans to minimize suffering in the simulation. They found this more shocking then if the creator hadn't thought of the issue

By this same argument, wouldn't having children be unethical? (I believe it is by the way)

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyone reading this, though.

You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.

wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering

you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times

Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.

So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?

Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.

You said that "it would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering", but it applies also to having children, so you clarified that the creator has to have a "reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome" for it to be unethical. So if the creator of the universe doesn't have such reason, your original assumption is not valid anymore, making it perfectly ethical to create a simulation of universe as long as you believe that the net outcome will be positive.

Thank you. That's what I was getting at. A simulated world would contain suffering just as the 'real' (presumably) world does. Bringing 'conscious life' into a simulated world would be no more unethical than bringing life into the world we inhabit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com