EA without EA

http://logs.omegle.com/3cecd1688fdfdc71
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You both like philosophy.

Stranger: hello

You: Hey

Stranger: how's it going?

You: Well.

Stranger: that's fantastic!

Stranger: what ideas have you been contemplating recently?

You: um...

You: related to philosophy...I'd have to think harder...

You: I guess I thought of a few better titles for this small movement I'm a part of

Stranger: very important for PR

You: I guess

You: What about yourself?

Stranger: Feminism for example, gets a lot of flack for its name alone

Stranger: I've been thinking the degree to which speech should be free

Stranger: It's tough nut to crack

You: Is that personally related to something going on in your life?

Stranger: well, the news (fake news particularly) and in general some debates that I have come across

Stranger: hate speech for example

Stranger: should we allow certain ideas to be advocated for (Nazism, Genocide, etc.)

Stranger: it's caused quite a storm in my head

You: I see

Stranger: I came across an old book (written in the 1850s) called On Liberty which discusses the topic. It's quite fascinating how much the whole idea of free speech has evolved

Stranger: anything on your side apart from names for movements?

You: I'm pretty dull

You: I only got about 4 hours of sleep

You: 13 hours ago

Stranger: like the CEO of Pepsi Co

Stranger: and no sleep is always fun!

Stranger: maybe you should go to bed

You: You know that book by Mill is pretty well known

Stranger: it is

You: It's 8PM here. So no thanks.

You: I don't know, it just seemed like you thought it was some arcane text ;)

Stranger: it wasn't my intention

Stranger: but it is quite old

You: Perhaps

You: Oh, I suppose an idea that was tossed around recently

You: is about what people will do with their time in the very far future.

Stranger: very far being complete automation?

You: Or how they will be able to use it compared to today

You: Near complete, yes

Stranger: we won't. we'll all be dead ;)

Stranger: they*

You: Let's say the human race manages to do commercial, then independent space exploration

You: Then would you think everyone would die?

Stranger: I was joking that superintelligent AI would kill us all

You: Oh

Stranger: as to how people would spend our time... honestly, no clue. it's such an uncharted territory that I just can't speculate

You: Depending on the extent of entertainment/soma

You: I think there will be a bunch of intellectual type groups

Stranger: we'll all be on drugs you mean?

You: Who basically do a lot of research

You: More specifically, I mean virtual reality for entertainment. And ya, the extent we take happy pills too

Stranger: yeah these would be some of the factors

Stranger: there's also the degree to which AI would outcompete humans

Stranger: also advancements in human enhancement

You: yes, I realize, a singularity

Stranger: and how humans actually behave when they don't actually need to work to sustain their existence

You: makes me think another bunch of people will have a much higher degree of suicidal thoughts

You: because life...meaningless (in a way)

Stranger: that's a fair thought

Stranger: conduct a study and try and see ;)

You: have you ever considered cryogenics?

Stranger: as in freezing yourself?

You: yep

You: like in the movies

Stranger: if it actually worked, sure

You: ?

You: Ah, I had thought

You: That there would be no point to do it if it worked

Stranger: why not?

You: Well, I take that back

You: So cryogenics is based on two main assuptions

You: That you will be able to be reanimated

You: And that technology in the future will make you essentially immortal

You: So I always just gloss over the first assuption

Stranger: I'd generalize the second assumption to human civilization continuing in an upward trajectory in terms of social and scientific advancements

Stranger: and I'm quite optimistic, so I'd freeze myself

You: Initially I would too

You: But on second thoughts, I believe it'd be morally wrong

Stranger: forsaking everyone around you?

You: well, sort of the opposite

You: everyone not by me (since I'm in the US)

You: People in extreme/absolute poverty

You: $28k could do a lot of good

You: (That figure seems a small for cryogenics subscriptions I've come across anyway)

Stranger: so your argument is that it'd be immoral since the money could be used to help other people?

You: Significantly help other people

You: Not just a happier or more cushier life

You: I'd even say, save them from an early death

Stranger: Let me reductio ad absurdum this

Stranger: buying any luxury items other than the bear minimum for physical and psychological wellbeing is immoral

You: Nope

You: Funny you say that

You: That's exactly the idea some people get about...

Stranger: "the idea some people get about"?

You: I'm looking for a quote...

Stranger: but wasn't your argument for immorality based on the money being used to help people?

You: yes, hold on

Stranger: there is an economics argument that I can think of

Stranger: still looking?

You: Well, I want to find a quote that goes with this other quote

You: Because it's kind of dangling

You: So this argument has been already laid out by a contemporary philosopher

Stranger: who?

You: Quote 1:

You: "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad".[8]
"If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it".[8]

You: Quote 2:

You: "I therefore used the phrase 'comparable moral importance' rather than 'comparable suffering', in order to allow readers to judge for themselves what is of comparable moral importance."

Stranger: interesting ideas

You: So it's really not about pinching pennies, but practicality

You: I mean, you could short-circuit the whole thing, even before getting into it

You: By the is-ought debate

Stranger: but let me retort and show that my reductio ad absurdum and cryogenics are categorically the same from the moral prospective you presented

You: And then I would point to how that's not practical

Stranger: not practical?

You: Yes, and with that marginal

You: A pack of gum isn't going to make a break anyone

Stranger: sure, you can think of a pack of gum. or you can think of a more expensive car. or a bigger house

You: For my sake, just want to restate: "Buying any luxury items other than the bare minimum for physical and psychological wellbeing is immoral"

Stranger: or some recreational activities

You: Right, and in your example I believe a luxurious car, and a luxury house is immoral

Stranger: yup. just taking your moral reasoning to their ridiculous conclusion

You: What ridiculous conclustion?

Stranger: therefore you are concluding that an incredible number of people are immoral. Which is fair

You: Ya, I am claiming that.

You: More like they don't really know though

You: Ignorance, unawareness

Stranger: or they just don't see it this way

You: I'm talking about the majority of people

Stranger: and I'm saying that they might not see spending significant amounts of money on personal luxuries as immoral

You: You're right, some are aware though

You: "[I]f I had a maximally informed and coherent and unified set of set, then what I would desire, under the constraint of being concerned with human flourishing, impartially conceived, would be to give whatever I can spare to famine relief; but without that constraint, my overriding desire would be to own a Porsche."

You: Ya, and I'm saying

You: they're unaware that they can help the people I initially mentioned

You: ~ in regard to cryogenics

You: Don't worry though. I'm not here to advocate.

Stranger: so just to clarify: your argument for cryogenics being immoral is that the great amount of money it'd require can be used to significantly improve the lives of other people. And if you extrapolate that idea, then any instance where an individual spends a significant amount of money on a personal luxury instead of donating it, they are being immoral

You: yep

You: So this is one of Peter Singer's arguments.

Stranger: against cryogenics or american capitalism?

You: Maybe. Maybe the actual argument is saying something about capitalism

Stranger: if you extrapolate it, it does :P

You: I suppose

You: Well, I gotta go

Stranger: sweet dreams

You have disconnected.