Yes because then your car battery won’t start
You can “simulate” life inside your brain, too.
[Alt text: this is Bob. Bob is a figment of you imagination. When you leave, Bob will leave too. “Don’t leave” says Bob]The Bob in your head is intelligent, it can communicate in English. Is it unethical to stop thinking about Bob? Was it unethical of me to show you this picture, creating a “Bob” in your head? Is any story unethical to tell?
Hmm. I also imagined a new bpb that says, “its ok to leave i will be ok”.
There is a tv film, i don’t know the title, related about this topic.
The plot was :
a group of scientists made a living simulation, and go in the simulation to operate fixes and prevent making simulation. On day, one the scientific was killed, and left a message in the simulation for their coworkers. The message was : “take a road and follow no direction”, a guy in the simulation followed the instruction and discovered that he was in a simulation, but the message were for the scientists who are in a simulation too.
If someone can find the movie, it could be great.
and go in the simulation to operate fixes and prevent making simulation.
Pardon?
I’ve seen it a long time ago, and if I remember well, they have to prevent the simulation people to build a simulation, otherwise the hardware will not be able to keep up. And big part of the plot, the scientists can load in the simulation.
In 2000, The Thirteenth Floor was nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film but lost to The Matrix.
Yeah that’s a pretty good sell. I’ll check it out.
i liked it, but I like almost everything, so that’s not much of a sell.
Intelligence isn’t the important factor there - consciousness is. Does it feel like something to be those entities in the simulation? If yes, then I’d argue that ending the simulation is like killing a person painlessly in their sleep.
I personally don’t think ending the simulation is even the most troubling part. We could unintentionally create a simulation that’s effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don’t realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
We could unintentionally create a simulation that’s effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don’t realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
And this is basically the plot of the TV series Severance. Has me wondering how they intend to address it.
Didn’t scientists train brain cells to exclusively play Doom? It’s like their whole conscience is stuck in a video game version of hell through a brain in a vat experience.
Not really. It’s not nearly enough cells to have any kind of consciousness as we know it. A few neurons learning to play a game is a far cry from tying a being into a simulation of hell.
I dunno. Some life forms have only a few brain cells. It could mean their whole world for those little cells, wouldn’t it?
It is definitely their entire world, but the point is it takes far more than a few cells to create actual human-relatable sentience.
That’s coming from someone who fully understands and knows that many more animals than most humans care to admit also have sentience.
Those petri dishes are not sentient nor conscious.
exclusively play Doom?
How dare they take away their right to variety! /s
USS Calister
The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.
Antinatalism entered the chat
Or maybe just well reasoned morality?
I’d imagine there could be an ethical way to do so through a sunset protocol similar to the concept of rapture (the religious kind, not the Bioshock city) - freeze simulation, move all the beings’ minds to “heaven”, shut down physical universe simulation (lowering operation costs by at least five orders of magnitude, I’d imagine), and let them enjoy afterlife until they get tired of existing, reach nirvana, or something like that.
That reminds me, I should really get back into AI research.
Just turn down the simulation speed real low and run it at one tick per 20 years, then you can technically keep it going without such great expense. The people inside won’t notice the difference.
“Now playing human music, on Earth Radio”
Hahahaha. Eat apple!
If you take the limit of that you’ll realize that people won’t raise if you turn it off either.
The fun thing about ethics is that not everyone shares the same rules. Personally, I would probably say it is. (Though is more worse than what we do to cows? Or what we do to other humans in war?) However, others may say they aren’t real, and only an illusion manufactured by the simulation, so it’s fine. There are other arguments I’m sure someone could make too. It’s up for you to decide what your ethics are, not others. There is no universal code of ethics just as there is no universal morality.
If this is a way for our simulation creator to decide to pull the plug without guilt, I guess just go ahead and do it. I was holding out hope that this was all real, but it has been getting more clear that it’s not.
Couldn’t they just make us all infertile and let us die naturally or something?
Found God’s account
Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have a queen, not dark but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love me and despair!
Did you just watch “Plaything” on Black Mirror?
Sometimes I think of that episode when I play Rimworld and start harvesting blood and organs from a prisoner
I was thinking the microverse battery from Rick and Morty!
Somewhere in a box in your childhood home, a Tamagotchi is slowly dying…
Slowly? Those things would ‘die’ in under 24 hours!
What the fuck is a Tamagotchi
The ethics which we use today evolved out of practical ethics - that is to say, it’s evolved out of a need for a set of rules meant to be applied in order dictate the conduct of humans amongst one another. Because of this, I think most ethical frames of reference are ill-suited for trying to answer this question soundly.
It seems analogous to trying to apply traditional physics to a quantum reference frame. It’s outside traditional Physics’s wheelhouse. A different set of tools likely needs to be applied, which has a different starting paradigm.
That being said, your answer is really going depend on what this new ethic’s paradigm is, which is arguably completely arbitrary in this specific case.
I’d say that whether or not it’s in a simulation doesn’t matter. If the beings you created were recognizable as people (human or otherwise) then they have rights and you’d be trampling those rights if you ended their existence. The creation of such life should not be done without an appropriate sense of responsibility.
then they have rights
Why? I’m not trolling, I just really think it’s interesting where people think “rights” come from. Some people think they come from God. Which is great, because in this scenario we are God. So anything we do is ethical because we did it.
I contend they come from States. Because I notice that rights are different in different States. And I don’t think a god would obey jurisdiction.
Another way of saying this is that the beings themselves have to recognize and demand rights. Because a state is just people deciding things after all.
So where do the rights come from? Are they a legal/socail construct, or inherent in the universe some how? Some third thing I didn’t think of?
People forget how scary the real world is. We are the only creatures to create this concept of rights. You think that grizzly bear cares about your rights? Got some news for you…
And shit, even we don’t respect other people’s right to exist.
:: gestures very very briefly to… EVERYTHING going on right now::
You think the asteroid that ended 90+% of life on earth cared about the dinosaurs’ rights?
All that being said, I wouldn’t be able to pull the plug.
I wouldn’t want to shut down the simulation, but it would depend on the energy expenditure. A hospital could theoretically save more people if they allocated fifty million dollars per patient. A person’s right to life is contingent on the cost to maintain it.
Good call, I didn’t consider power consumption. I agree with you.
I am of the opinion that rights come from understanding, that recognizing and respecting them is a hallmark of advancing human understanding. States/religions/whatever that lack rights are either less advanced in understanding or motivated to avoid recognizing/respecting them.
Only if they’re conscious of the simulation.
Username checks out.
