> why are we building all of this?

To remove humans from power in all cases where our biases and animalistic nature would cause unnecessary suffering to others. As a species we are quickly approaching some very hard problems that no individual, or even small group, is capable of handling in a consistently rational manner. On our current trajectory of resource constraints and habitability constrictions, ethics by the numbers is inevitable.

We are either going to leave it to the powerful to sacrifice those they consider undesirable, as we have throughout history, or replace them with something not afflicted by the flawed elements of human nature to make the most compassionate decision possible amidst the horror.

▲

asdff 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Reminds me of the joke "Want to lose an ugly 20lbs? Cut off your head!"

▲

pluralmonad 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you make sure the thing you are hoping saves everyone has an inclination (or ability) to do so? How do you make sure it is only afflicted with the human parts you like and not the ones you don't?

	▲	HardlyCognizant 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing can save everyone, that's the point. There is no miracle out there that suddenly makes the world a fairy tale. And I don't have an answer, otherwise I would have made a claim to that effect. This is a hard problem, and the human mind is not naturally equipped to work at the scales in question. Perhaps the solution is a thing (e.g a program), a process like democracy of some ilk, or something else entirely. The important part is recognizing our limits and working to account for them in our solutions. Acting without that awareness is a recipe for disaster.

▲

RandomLensman 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is rational? Who determines what is a true constraint vs a choice, etc.?

▲

dgellow 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That reads like satire, but just to be extra sure: you’re not serious, right? That’s a monstrous position to have