Tweet
http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/
A fun read...
what I don't understand is why the futuristic humans where so shocked by the babyeaters?
I mean really is contraception that different? Killing your offspring is not that different from preventing a fetus from settling in or aborting a fetus.
Lets boil this down to components:
A) the suffering of the creatures involved
B) destruction of intelligent creatures
C) the recycling of resources from our "babies" (using the term loosly)
The baby eaters surley could see that eating our dead featuses, stilborn and eggs would be impractical, it is much simpler (and more efficient) to let other creatures recycle the biomass. So C is no longer a conflict.
To suffering, we permit some suffering to take place, animals and fetuses with nervus systems (this may be a contraversial statement).
We don't however tolerate (for the most part) suffering of creatures capable of sentience (so A partialy overlaps with B)
I think a reasonable compromise might be enchancement technology jointly developed by the Babyeaters and humans, that increases the speed of the dygestion of the Babyeaters children (shortening it from months to hours) and perhaps providing anastesia for the children.
We on the other hand use biotech modify our uteruses so that dead featuses and spent eggs are reabsorbed into the female body (thus we too eat our babies, which is the very definition of the word good BTW). This has the added benefit of being tech that can eliminate the period in human. It is also tech that enables 100% proof contraception (control over egg drops and egg absorption) eliminating the need for abortions (something that might make some of my fellow humans happy).
This compromise would I think already enable cooperation, peace and tolerance.
We then convince them that genetic engineering and its equvialent is the most rational choice for both humans and Babyeaters. We (humans and babyeaters) agree to use virtual reality to plan our offspring instead of building wastefull prototypes. The babyeaters can then enjoy a VR simulation of eating the simulated suboptimal children.
All babies "born" (physically constructed) are considered off limits for killing.
Since the simulations are very much sentient by my definition, this makes the practice no better (it perhaps only more thorughly eliminates the suffering of the babies rendering point A moot). But it might make it more acceptable for my fellow irattional humans.
A fun read...
what I don't understand is why the futuristic humans where so shocked by the babyeaters?
I mean really is contraception that different? Killing your offspring is not that different from preventing a fetus from settling in or aborting a fetus.
Lets boil this down to components:
A) the suffering of the creatures involved
B) destruction of intelligent creatures
C) the recycling of resources from our "babies" (using the term loosly)
The baby eaters surley could see that eating our dead featuses, stilborn and eggs would be impractical, it is much simpler (and more efficient) to let other creatures recycle the biomass. So C is no longer a conflict.
To suffering, we permit some suffering to take place, animals and fetuses with nervus systems (this may be a contraversial statement).
We don't however tolerate (for the most part) suffering of creatures capable of sentience (so A partialy overlaps with B)
I think a reasonable compromise might be enchancement technology jointly developed by the Babyeaters and humans, that increases the speed of the dygestion of the Babyeaters children (shortening it from months to hours) and perhaps providing anastesia for the children.
We on the other hand use biotech modify our uteruses so that dead featuses and spent eggs are reabsorbed into the female body (thus we too eat our babies, which is the very definition of the word good BTW). This has the added benefit of being tech that can eliminate the period in human. It is also tech that enables 100% proof contraception (control over egg drops and egg absorption) eliminating the need for abortions (something that might make some of my fellow humans happy).
This compromise would I think already enable cooperation, peace and tolerance.
We then convince them that genetic engineering and its equvialent is the most rational choice for both humans and Babyeaters. We (humans and babyeaters) agree to use virtual reality to plan our offspring instead of building wastefull prototypes. The babyeaters can then enjoy a VR simulation of eating the simulated suboptimal children.
All babies "born" (physically constructed) are considered off limits for killing.
Since the simulations are very much sentient by my definition, this makes the practice no better (it perhaps only more thorughly eliminates the suffering of the babies rendering point A moot). But it might make it more acceptable for my fellow irattional humans.
Comment