I speculate that it’s reasonably likely that the Earth was we know it exists in a simulation or vivarium of some kind that is being observed
If this is the case, then the simulators or caretakers are more responsible for all the awful stuff here on Earth than we are, since yes a lot is our fault, but also a lot is a result of scarcity and necessity, or just out of our control entirely. At the very least, they don’t care enough to actively intervene, which is all I’m really saying.
I also speculate that it’s reasonably likely that Earth-originating civilization will eventually encounter alien sentient life, who are more likely to judge us negatively than positively for the ways in which we tend to mistreat sentient life.
Maybe this is the crux? I expect the most powerful aliens we encounter first will be sampling-biased to be more pragmatic-expansionist than even we are, which doesn’t seem to me to correlate with the sort of sentimental universalism that I’d fervently hope for.
> Presumably if the norm is not being adhered to, it’s because there aren’t sufficiently powerful members of the cosmos who are willing to enforce it.
That wouldn’t make it not the cosmic Schelling norm, to be clear. A norm can be broadly recognized as Schelling without being broadly enforced or adhered to.
Now I’m confused, because you initially said:
I speculate that this not true, unless by “no effective power” you mean “no powerful members of cosmos willing to defend them”.
I.e. you’re saying my claim probably isn’t true unless it’s made weaker by making the “no effective power” condition more restrictive. But I accept that restriction, I just don’t think it’s all that restrictive, there are plenty of sentients without powerful members of cosmos willing to defend them, and the important part of that condition is adherence, not theoretical schelling norm.
So do you think that ‘weaker’ claim is false too?
Q: Is it good or bad to exclude a class of sentients with no effective power and no powerful members of cosmos willing to defend them from the sphere of moral consideration and exploit them to an arbitrary degree to pursue your own ends?
If this is the case, then the simulators or caretakers are more responsible for all the awful stuff here on Earth than we are, since yes a lot is our fault, but also a lot is a result of scarcity and necessity, or just out of our control entirely. At the very least, they don’t care enough to actively intervene, which is all I’m really saying.
Maybe this is the crux? I expect the most powerful aliens we encounter first will be sampling-biased to be more pragmatic-expansionist than even we are, which doesn’t seem to me to correlate with the sort of sentimental universalism that I’d fervently hope for.
Now I’m confused, because you initially said:
I.e. you’re saying my claim probably isn’t true unless it’s made weaker by making the “no effective power” condition more restrictive. But I accept that restriction, I just don’t think it’s all that restrictive, there are plenty of sentients without powerful members of cosmos willing to defend them, and the important part of that condition is adherence, not theoretical schelling norm.
So do you think that ‘weaker’ claim is false too?