Maybe there’s a combination of birth and environment conditions that maximize utility for an individual, but we may have different values for society in general which would lead to a lower overall utility for a society of identical people. For example, we generally value diversity, and I think the utility function we use for society in general would probably return a lower result for a population of identical optimally born/raised people than for a diverse population of slightly-less-than-optimally born/raised people.
If we hold diversity as a terminal value then yes, a diverse population of less-than-optimal people is better. But don’t we generally see diversity less as a terminal value than something that’s useful because it approximates terminal values?
I think at least some people do, but I don’t have a good argument or evidence to support that claim. Even if your only terminal values are more traditional conceptions of utility, diversity still serves those values really well. A homogenous population is not just more boring, but also less resilient to change (and pathogens, depending on the degree of homogeneity). I think it would be shortsighted and overconfident to design an optimal, identical population since they would lack the resilience and variety of experience to maintain that optimally once any problems appeared.
Boring matters if they consider it a negative, which isn’t a necessity (boredom being something we can edit if needed).
Re: resilience, I agree that those are good reasons to not try anything like this today or in the immediate future. But at a far enough point where we understand our environment with enough precision to not have to overly worry about external threats, would that still hold? Or do you think that kind of future isn’t possible? (Realistically, and outside the simplified scenario, AGI could take care of any future problems without our needing to trouble ourselves).
Maybe there’s a combination of birth and environment conditions that maximize utility for an individual, but we may have different values for society in general which would lead to a lower overall utility for a society of identical people. For example, we generally value diversity, and I think the utility function we use for society in general would probably return a lower result for a population of identical optimally born/raised people than for a diverse population of slightly-less-than-optimally born/raised people.
If we hold diversity as a terminal value then yes, a diverse population of less-than-optimal people is better. But don’t we generally see diversity less as a terminal value than something that’s useful because it approximates terminal values?
I think at least some people do, but I don’t have a good argument or evidence to support that claim. Even if your only terminal values are more traditional conceptions of utility, diversity still serves those values really well. A homogenous population is not just more boring, but also less resilient to change (and pathogens, depending on the degree of homogeneity). I think it would be shortsighted and overconfident to design an optimal, identical population since they would lack the resilience and variety of experience to maintain that optimally once any problems appeared.
Boring matters if they consider it a negative, which isn’t a necessity (boredom being something we can edit if needed).
Re: resilience, I agree that those are good reasons to not try anything like this today or in the immediate future. But at a far enough point where we understand our environment with enough precision to not have to overly worry about external threats, would that still hold? Or do you think that kind of future isn’t possible? (Realistically, and outside the simplified scenario, AGI could take care of any future problems without our needing to trouble ourselves).