On the Sucsessors of Mankind (RAR!)

[Formless]

Humanity über Alles! As long as one man draws breath, however enslaved, hope remains. A cosmos ruled by machines is an abomination not only to us, but to all biological life everywhere.

But in the machines scenario, as long as the machines live we live, at least in some form. The may not breath like us, and they may not even think quite like us, but they have our history and the memory of our civilization. Even though hope remains for the humans of the first scenario, there is no need for hope in the second. You are simply prejudiced against Artificial Intelligence: conceptually speaking, you're no better than a racist pigshit. There is no reason a machine can't figure out that intelligent minds should be respected regardless of the material they are made of, but the distinction seems lost on you.

[Darth Yoshi]

So, it's essentially Planet Galaxy of the Apes Octostarfishfrogs vs. a non-genocidal Skynet. Hail, robot overlords.

I've wondered about that, myself. Rather than us getting ourselves completely ass-kicked by a sentient machine, what are the chances that we'll more or less just ending up merging with our creations? I know I probably wouldn't mind being the equivalent of a Von Neumann probe.

Isn't that the logical outcome of transhumanism?

[Darth Hoth]

But in the machines scenario, as long as the machines live we live, at least in some form. The may not breath like us, and they may not even think quite like us, but they have our history and the memory of our civilization.

If it does not think like us (which no nonhuman can, by definition, "super intelligent" or not), then what use is it that it has recorded some of our culture? How much would it mean to a Neanderthal if we preserved one of their grunts as a noun in our language? It does not perpetuate our culture as we would want it, let alone our species.

Even though hope remains for the humans of the first scenario, there is no need for hope in the second.

Except that in that scenario humanity is dead; might or might not be successfully recreated; and, even if it is, has an evolutionary adversary much, much harder to combat than the zookeeper aliens.

You are simply prejudiced against Artificial Intelligence: conceptually speaking, you're no better than a racist pigshit. There is no reason a machine can't figure out that intelligent minds should be respected regardless of the material they are made of, but the distinction seems lost on you.

Racism is irrational because human beings are inherently equal (within certain ranges). Not everyone is as strong, smart, and so on, but we are all within the human norm, and between races in particular what differences exist are relatively minor affairs. Same with the sexes. The same argument does not apply to beings that are far outside the human parameters (whether better or worse); then you might as lief equal a human to a dog as to a "super intelligent" computer. There are also evolutionary factors to consider (all human races being part of the same species, which a machine cannot be).

Or, the short version: the "Evil Racist" argument commonly posited by "transhumanists" against those who speak in favour of humanity is a load of red herring.

[The Vortex Empire]

So we either survive as slaves and pets, eking out an existence under oppressive alien overlords, or we live on through our descendants, neutral or good robots who may eventually revive us. I welcome our new robot overlords.

[Formless]

If it does not think like us (which no nonhuman can, by definition, "super intelligent" or not), then what use is it that it has recorded some of our culture? How much would it mean to a Neanderthal if we preserved one of their grunts as a noun in our language? It does not perpetuate our culture as we would want it, let alone our species.

And that is necessarily a bad thing... why? What, besides sentimentality, is the intrinsic worth of our species other than our history and our discoveries? Our culture did, after all, invent every evil in the book (we wrote it, after all, and have not one other to study), so why, if the choice is between slavery and death, would you choose the rout where a proven evil power gets to rule the cosmos? Oh, right, because you employ the same mentality that has held our society and species down since the dawn of time: mindless xenophobia.

Besides, this would be true anyway because our culture, and even our biology, is constantly evolving. We will NOT be the same people in 300 years that we are now, though no one can say just how different we will be.

Except that in that scenario humanity is dead; might or might not be successfully recreated; and, even if it is, has an evolutionary adversary much, much harder to combat than the zookeeper aliens.

*yawn* Red herring. The point is that in one scenario, you have benevolent machine life ruling the known universe, and in the other fucking slavers. I'm not just considering the fate of humanity, there is also the fact that the Lovecraftians are a threat to ALL civilizations in the cosmos, not just humanity. Do I have to spell that out for you, retard?

Racism is irrational because human beings are inherently equal (within certain ranges). Not everyone is as strong, smart, and so on, but we are all within the human norm, and between races in particular what differences exist are relatively minor affairs. Same with the sexes. The same argument does not apply to beings that are far outside the human parameters (whether better or worse); then you might as lief equal a human to a dog as to a "super intelligent" computer. There are also evolutionary factors to consider (all human races being part of the same species, which a machine cannot be).

Its more basic than that: its because we are sentient life. Consider the fact that earlier you were saying that the machines represent a threat to "all biological life everywhere," so clearly even you know this isn't the reason racism is irrational. Sentience implies a basic level of equality that TRANSCENDS species barriers. Evolution has nothing to do with it: its a matter of ethics. Which you seem to be too stupid to comprehend, if your following statements are anything to judge by.

Or, the short version: the "Evil Racist" argument commonly posited by "transhumanists" against those who speak in favour of humanity is a load of red herring.

Do you see any transhumanists in this thread, asshole? No— only people who are smart enough to understand that in a fictional sci-fi dilemma, its better to go extinct and leave causal descendants who are benevolent than let FUCKING SLAVERS rule the known universe. Do you have a brain defect or something? Or are you pro-slavery too?

You dismiss my argument without even touching it. I'm telling you that your opinion is based on the same bigoted MINDSET as a racist, or for that matter of a homophobe; "only people in MY peer group count as equals, and [fill in the blank] group should be judged by a different criteria because of [fill in dishonest bullshit rhetoric here]." THIS is what you SHOULD have said:

A cosmos country ruled by machines gays blacks is an abomination not only to us, but to all biological life christian white civilization everywhere.

Tell me why I should respect your opinion when it is exactly the same mindset as every racist or homophobic bigot ever? I'm not saying "machines R better, duhr hurr " I'm saying that since both AI and humans are (presumably) sentient we are equals ethically (even if not in terms of processing power) and should be granted the same basic respect, treatment, and rights; and that there is no reason to think an intelligent AI can't figure this out thus showing your knee jerk "they are an abomination to life everywhere" bullshit to be fraudulent.

[Darth Hoth]

And that is necessarily a bad thing... why? What, besides sentimentality, is the intrinsic worth of our species other than our history and our discoveries? Our culture did, after all, invent every evil in the book (we wrote it, after all, and have not one other to study), so why, if the choice is between slavery and death, would you choose the rout where a proven evil power gets to rule the cosmos? Oh, right, because you employ the same mentality that has held our society and species down since the dawn of time: mindless xenophobia.

The ultimate imperative for any species is its own survival. This is on a basic, evolutionary level that transcends any morality or ethics it might invent. It is a sign of terminal confusion for a creature to question the intrinsic value of his own kind.

Besides, this would be true anyway because our culture, and even our biology, is constantly evolving. We will NOT be the same people in 300 years that we are now, though no one can say just how different we will be.

Culture evolves, and people's values change with time. A couple of hundred years executions were public entertainment, less so nowadays. But the core of the human being - his emotions, basic motivations, the very process of reasoning - remains the same throughout our history. In an impossibly distant future this might change, but not in any reasonable interval of time. Evolution is an evolutionary process that changes the organism slowly and builds upon earlier developments; the development of artificial intelligences are an abrupt leap with no control, and leaves the legacy of earlier development behind.

*yawn* Red herring. The point is that in one scenario, you have benevolent machine life ruling the known universe, and in the other fucking slavers. I'm not just considering the fate of humanity, there is also the fact that the Lovecraftians are a threat to ALL civilizations in the cosmos, not just humanity. Do I have to spell that out for you, retard?

Excuse me, then, what you posted was this:

Even though hope remains for the humans of the first scenario, there is no need for hope in the second.

Which seemed strongly to imply that you thought humanity was better off in the machine scenario.

And yes, I am considering the fate of my own species above that of hypothetical alien civilisations of which I know nothing and which might for all I know not even exist, you are correct in that. The fact remains that these hypothetical aliens would still also be better off with the zookeeper aliens, for the same reason that I gave for humanity: they are not as accomplished a competitor to them, and can more easily be defeated by those who would seek to preserve their independence. An "Always Chaotic Evil" but relatively incompetent adversary is better than a less evil one that knows its work.

Its more basic than that: its because we are sentient life. Consider the fact that earlier you were saying that the machines represent a threat to "all biological life everywhere," so clearly even you know this isn't the reason racism is irrational. Sentience implies a basic level of equality that TRANSCENDS species barriers. Evolution has nothing to do with it: its a matter of ethics. Which you seem to be too stupid to comprehend, if your following statements are anything to judge by.

The welfare of the species is above ethics. And sentience is an arbitrary criterion to base an argument on that inherently unequal beings are equal in an ethical sense. One shared trait does not an equal make: I could as convincingly argue that since both dogs and humans feel pain (obviously a much more basic trait than any cognitive development), we are naturally equals - a lot of people (e.g., extreme vegetarians) actually believe this. The only equality that nature acknowledges is equality in ability, on which fundamental assumption the idea of human equality is based.

Do you see any transhumanists in this thread, asshole? No— only people who are smart enough to understand that in a fictional sci-fi dilemma, its better to go extinct and leave causal descendants who are benevolent than let FUCKING SLAVERS rule the known universe. Do you have a brain defect or something? Or are you pro-slavery too?

No, I see your argument: By a set standard of utilitarian ethics, it is better that humanity dies out altogether than that zookeeper aliens rule a galaxy (an utterly minuscule portion of the known Universe) and potentially oppress hypothetical alien civilisations that are not mentioned in the OP and for all intents and purposes may not exist. In the scenarios, humanity is better off in the first: It is unambiguously better to be alive and have a chance to recover than to be dead. What part of this do you not understand?

Tell me why I should respect your opinion when it is exactly the same mindset as every racist or homophobic bigot ever? I'm not saying "machines R better, duhr hurr " I'm saying that since both AI and humans are (presumably) sentient we are equals ethically (even if not in terms of processing power) and should be granted the same basic respect, treatment, and rights; and that there is no reason to think an intelligent AI can't figure this out thus showing your knee jerk "they are an abomination to life everywhere" bullshit to be fraudulent.

Again, equality of rights presupposes equality (within a range of deviation) of ability. People who are severely retarded or mentally ill do not have the same rights as others in our society, for example, even though they are perfectly "sentient". This is because they would not be able to survive in competition with humans of average ability and on the contrary require our constant aid; it is for their own protection. It is impossible to impose an arbitrary equality on creatures that are fundamentally unequal in their basics.

[Sarevok]

Replace humans with one of the proto human species we evolved from.

Replace the machines with homo sapiens.

Now try the arguements about transhumanism. See what is wrong here ? Humans are just the current state of a long series of changes. There is nothing that says that the changes won't go on just like when humans themselves evolved from ape like creatures to something more.

[Formless]

The ultimate imperative for any species is its own survival. This is on a basic, evolutionary level that transcends any morality or ethics it might invent. It is a sign of terminal confusion for a creature to question the intrinsic value of his own kind.

This presupposes that evolution has a purpose (in this case survival of the species), a fallacy that has been demolished time and again by those who understand evolution. Besides, even if it did, 99% of all species that walked the earth are now extinct so survival obviously cannot be its purpose. Try again.

Culture evolves, and people's values change with time. A couple of hundred years executions were public entertainment, less so nowadays. But the core of the human being - his emotions, basic motivations, the very process of reasoning - remains the same throughout our history. In an impossibly distant future this might change, but not in any reasonable interval of time.

And your point? If anything, its amazing that we're capable of rational thought at all. Most of us can't even understand exponential growth for the life of us. Our capability for reason might make us special, but no more so than it would make an artificial or alien mind. If it is emotion that makes us special, then my cat is just as special. I pet him and he is happy; he purrs and I am happy. The same emotions are there and have been constant throughout the history of both our species and beyond because we are both mammals. And I put it to you that the only motivations that are truly universal among humans in our history are the one's needed to survive: ones all living organisms, biological or not, must share.

Which seemed strongly to imply that you thought humanity was better off in the machine scenario.

I did. You see, survival of the species is not the most important thing; survival of our knowledge and history is. In a sense, the machines of the second scenario effectively are humanity because we created them.

Other species are also better off, as others had already noted, and is blindingly obvious by the description we have of the Lovecraftians. Again, how could you not notice that they are fucking xenophobic slavers? I really shouldn't have to point that out.

And yes, I am considering the fate of my own species above that of hypothetical alien civilisations of which I know nothing and which might for all I know not even exist, you are correct in that.

Look you xenophobic asshole, the OP clearly states that there is at least one other alien civilization that we know of in this scenario, which proves that intelligent life outside our limited human existence on this ball of rock is possible. Tell me again how you aren't employing the same "my group is better because I say so, and fuck the rest of you" mentality as every bigot in the history of Earth ever?

The fact remains that these hypothetical aliens would still also be better off with the zookeeper aliens, for the same reason that I gave for humanity: they are not as accomplished a competitor to them, and can more easily be defeated by those who would seek to preserve their independence.

You keep assuming that the AI civilization is interested in competing with other civilizations, while ignoring the fact that the vastness of interstellar space precludes competition between groups as far as resources are concerned, leaving only ideology and xenophobia as a cause for aggression. Justify that assumption, or concede.

The only party known to be hostile and a threat to other civilizations in this scenario are the Lovecraftians. The only reason you think the post-human AI would be dangerous is because of your preconceived and bigoted notion of "us VS them" with regards to AI in general.

An "Always Chaotic Evil" but relatively incompetent adversary is better than a less evil one that knows its work.

And a scenario where there is no adversary is better still. Keep waving those hands, I'm still not impressed.

The welfare of the species is above ethics.

There you have it folks. "My group is better because I say so, and fuck the rest of you."

I got news for you dipshit, nothing is beyond ethics.

And sentience is an arbitrary criterion to base an argument on that inherently unequal beings are equal in an ethical sense.

Why not? It is something we know we have in common. The only other one we know for sure we have in common is sapience. Its no more arbitrary than assuming that just because an intelligent mind isn't part of your species or isn't even biological in nature its moral worth shouldn't be considered at all. Again, what besides our intelligence makes us intrinsically special that wouldn't also make machine or alien life equally special?

One shared trait does not an equal make: I could as convincingly argue that since both dogs and humans feel pain (obviously a much more basic trait than any cognitive development), we are naturally equals - a lot of people (e.g., extreme vegetarians) actually believe this.

Why do you dismiss that argument? We may not assign as much value to the lives of other animals on this planet, but we nevertheless consider some methods of growing/slaughtering livestock to be less humane than others. Why is that, Freezerbrains? Also, explain to me why we consider it worse to kill animals we know to be more intelligent like dolphins or apes but less bothersome to kill cattle?

The only equality that nature acknowledges is equality in ability, on which fundamental assumption the idea of human equality is based.

And you don't think that if we discovered or invented other forms of intelligent life we wouldn't modify that assumption? There is nothing inherently moral about nature, fool.

No, I see your argument: By a set standard of utilitarian ethics, it is better that humanity dies out altogether than that zookeeper aliens rule a galaxy (an utterly minuscule portion of the known Universe) and potentially oppress hypothetical alien civilisations that are not mentioned in the OP and for all intents and purposes may not exist. In the scenarios, humanity is better off in the first: It is unambiguously better to be alive and have a chance to recover than to be dead. What part of this do you not understand?

You keep thinking that we have a chance, but you have yet to give any rational for this premise outside of mindless slogans. Again, the existence of one alien civilization infers the possibility of others, so you can't just dismiss them from the equation. The point is still going over your head: in the machines scenario, the rulers of the galaxy are benevolent, or at least neutral to other civilizations and species (as well as humans) because that is the logical outcome of simple ethics that any Intelligent mind should be able to grasp; in the other, the rulers of he galaxy are as xenophobic as you, and are demonstrably malevolent to other forms of life. How many times does that have to be spelled that out for you, Freezerbrains?

Again, equality of rights presupposes equality (within a range of deviation) of ability.

Ability, as I have already shown, is an irrelevant qualification because it is based on a Naturalistic fallacy.

People who are severely retarded or mentally ill do not have the same rights as others in our society, for example, even though they are perfectly "sentient".

You get more and more unbelievable with every word that comes out of your mouth. This is simply a lie. Do you think our society won't throw your moronic ass in prison for murdering a mentally disabled person? I didn't think so.

This is because they would not be able to survive in competition with humans of average ability and on the contrary require our constant aid; it is for their own protection.

If we are protecting them, then we are recognizing that in some way they have basic moral worth, just like everyone else. Which is it? Are the mentally disabled not considered our equals for the purpose of ethics? Or do they not deserve the same rights as everyone else? Do you even know what I mean by the word "equal," or do you really think your definition of "equality" has any relevance to ethics at all?

It is impossible to impose an arbitrary equality on creatures that are fundamentally unequal in their basics.

Impose nothing, you're simply full of shit. I can demonstrate equality between different creatures as long as they display similar features and needs. That is why utilitarian ethics uses pain/pleasure as a criteria, since it can be demonstrated that all animals on earth experience it, and that is why I use sentience/sapience as a criteria for equality when judging intelligent minds. Sure, a more intelligent mind might think of itself as more valuable than a less intelligent one, but that does not mean that it would consider that mind of no moral value at all.

Hell, given the right circumstances we can even consider the moral weight of simple life forms: for example we sterilize probes going to other planets like Mars so that just in case there is life there we don't accidentally contaminate its environment with competitive species from our planet. We don't even know for sure it exists, we certainly know it won't be advanced or intelligent, but insofar as it is life we recognize its importance and take precautions against killing it. So much for "only my species survival is important, and fuck the rest of ya."

[Starglider]

The 'survival transcends all ethics' thing is bullshit on so many levels it's hillarious. Firstly, there's the abovementioned fact that the vast majority of known species are already extinct, frequently replaced by their own evolved descendants. Secondly, there's the fact that no animal other than humans can even begin to reason about the 'survival of my species'. Humans doing so in a conscious fashion is actually an abberation in the natural order of things. Thirdly (and most importantly) there's the fact that 'same species as me' is an utterly arbitrary judgement. Not that Hoth is even using the technical definition of 'I could fuck it and expect babies' (which doesn't work as a reason not to kill other men anyway), no, he's using 'looks and thinks enough like me for me not to get too freaked out by it'. 'My species' is no more objective or moral than 'me', 'my family', 'my tribe', 'my nation', 'carbon based', 'naturally evolved', or any similar dividing line. Compared to nature, where even social animals (e.g. wolves) will kill the offspring of rivals when they think they can get away with it, generalising from 'my relatives' to 'humanity' is already arbitrary and bizarre, an awkward and unsupported mid-point between the 'contains some of my own genes' all non-sentient animals use and the 'all sentient beings' that the most objective possible ethics uses.

Fourthly, and most amusingly, Darth Hoth is in fact acting (or at least, claiming he would act) like a 'bezerker' AI; given the chance he will pre-emptively murder anything that has any possible chance of threating his long term goals. Ignore his arbitrary selection of superficial 'like me' criteria, and he is exactly what he claims to despise. I'm not sure if we can call him literally subhuman - I'd like to, but sadly it's a stretch when tribal genocide, ethnic cleansing, religiously motivated terrorism and gang wars are still all popular human passtimes. Certainly though, it is diametrically opposed to what most people would consider the best, most moral ideal of human behaviour.

[Formless]

Darth Freezerbrains really out to read up on his human rights. For every right listed, ask yourself: do we have this right simply because we are human beings? Or is there some more basic rationale for it that would apply to an intelligent being regardless of species? And if it is specific to the human condition, is it possible to restate it in terms that would make it more universal? I imagine that you will find very few that truly are too specific to the human condition that it can't or need not apply to other possible intelligent beings.

[PeZook]

Wait, how do humans enslaved in zoos and kept as pets, with no industrial base, tiny numbers, presumably all illiterate (who teaches a pet to read?) and barely capable of speaking, not to mention engineering and high level organization, without access and capability to operate to advanced weapons, explosives and combat starships, are going to have hope of defeating an interstellar empire?

The only "hope" they'll have is belief that God or Gods will come and deliver them from opression, which will never happen. And, even if the Lovecraftian civilization collapses by itself somehow, humanity will die out with it, because the enslaved humans will have no survival skills, either, and it's not like they'll be able to scavenge food from supermarkets on Planet XXXARGAHF'TANGH as a stopgap before they learn any.

[Formless]

Well, isn't it obvious? Humanity, über alles!

Its really easy to come to a bogus conclusion when your thought process consists of nothing but rehearsing slogans and aphorisms.

[PeZook]

It only makes sense if we hope that one day, another alien race will come and liberate us, but in interstellar war, it's infinitely more likely the zoos will get obliterated by nuclear fire along with the zookeepers, unless this hypothetical alien race is:

A) VASTLY more advanced, to the point they can conquer the Lovercraftians with ease (and for some reason didn't do it yet), or

B) Willing to spend the lives of hundreds of millions of their soldiers in order to save a bunch of savage sentients locked up in cages somewhere.

Besides, effectively, being liberated ten thousand years after becoming a species of pets is the same as being resurrected from synthesized DNA by our robot children, and at least we know the robots will attempt this, while the scenario says nothing about benelovent Elder Star Gods existing somewhere and ready to deliver us from opression.

[[R_H]]

Definitely option #2.

[frogcurry]

I voted option 2, then I started to wonder if the OP is an AI who has travelled back in time to poll us on the inevitable wiping out of humanity:

"Its OK to kill them all now, they'd rather die and have us take their place to conquer the universe if the alternative is letting aliens come out on top!"

[Starglider]

B) Willing to spend the lives of hundreds of millions of their soldiers in order to save a bunch of savage sentients locked up in cages somewhere.

The horrifying thing is, they could make incredible gesture of benevolence and respect for sentient rights, and according to Hoth they would be amoral idiots for trying to help an alien race, and the humans should still murder them all at the first chance they get, since the existence of other beings that might conceivably threaten human survival is intolerable.

[PeZook]

The horrifying thing is, they could make incredible gesture of benevolence and respect for sentient rights, and according to Hoth they would be amoral idiots for trying to help an alien race, and the humans should still murder them all at the first chance they get, since the existence of other beings that might conceivably threaten human survival is intolerable.

Yeah. It says a lot: if there was rough technological parity, and our hypothetical benelovent aliens decided to do that, they'd be making that great sacrifice for no other reason that to grant us freedom, very likely seriously compromising their war effort in the process. That should be commended, enshrined and remembered untill the end of the universe...but, well, fuck the aliens, right?

[lance]

Wait, how do humans enslaved in zoos and kept as pets, with no industrial base, tiny numbers, presumably all illiterate (who teaches a pet to read?) and barely capable of speaking, not to mention engineering and high level organization, without access and capability to operate to advanced weapons, explosives and combat starships, are going to have hope of defeating an interstellar empire?

The only "hope" they'll have is belief that God or Gods will come and deliver them from opression, which will never happen. And, even if the Lovecraftian civilization collapses by itself somehow, humanity will die out with it, because the enslaved humans will have no survival skills, either, and it's not like they'll be able to scavenge food from supermarkets on Planet XXXARGAHF'TANGH as a stopgap before they learn any.

I would say hope would come in the form of LCCETH. Lovcraftian Creatures for the Ethical Treatment of Humans. Or maybe a large quaker type of thing going on.

[Darth Yoshi]

Considering how ineffectual PETA is for humans, and the decidedly less friendly nature of the starfishoctofrogs, there's a higher likelihood of the machines somehow successfully recreating an accurate human genome.