BookTalk.org

2) even if intelligent life exists and travels in space how are we to assume that they would save humans as opposed to serving them ala
To Serve Mankind

Yep. The assumption is that aliens would be benevolent. Almost, angelic, if you will.
Why? Why should we assume that, all while supporting METI?
There is zero basis for that assumption. It's unscientific.

stahrwe wrote:I have no rational explanation for what happened to the keys. To me that qualifies as a metaphysical experience.

So the Triune Christian God is a Prankster? What a bizarre use of "The Force". To quote Spock, "Fascinating!"

Oh and strictly for fun:

Thank you Ant.

LaDroid I suspect you are indulging in the potent potable shown in your post.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

Public funding SETI is no longer an issue. But you get my point. Because an enterprise is fascinating, it doesn't automatically mean it's a justified expense.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if overpopulation is what dooms mankind? In hindsight, the best way to spend money isn't necessarily on saving lives, but preventing pregnancies. Perhaps there is a solution to some of these issues in the knowledge pool of ET. Just because something appears to be a justified expense doesn't mean it's a justified expense. How do you prove justification?

Do you think there's a moral obligation to save lives that could be saved if we redirected resources that go to stuff like extracurricular scientific ventures?

What's the phrase.., "expanding our moral circle" ?
Is it expanding it too much by doing what I suggested?

If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

The poor you will have with you always.

Or something like that?

DB Roy wrote:

If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

The poor you will have with you always.

Or something like that?

From what ethical/moral system did you pluck that quote from?

ant wrote:Do you think there's a moral obligation to save lives that could be saved if we redirected resources that go to stuff like extracurricular scientific ventures?

What's the phrase.., "expanding our moral circle" ?

I remember Peter Ustinov explaining the good that could be done for the price of one stealth bomber.

I remember Rumsfeld talking about 2.3 Trillion that the pentagon couldn't account for.

(Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Let's expand our moral circle by all means

Interbane,

Just in case you missed it. Here is my latest to you in this post:

Do you think there's a moral obligation to save lives that could be saved if we redirected resources that go to stuff like extracurricular scientific ventures? 

What's the phrase.., "expanding our moral circle" ?
Is it expanding it too much by doing what I suggested?

.

ant wrote:Do you think there's a moral obligation to save lives that could be saved if we redirected resources that go to stuff like extracurricular scientific ventures?

What's the phrase.., "expanding our moral circle" ?
Is it expanding it too much by doing what I suggested?

This is a great question because it's tough to answer. Most times, these sorts of idealized moral questions don't really match up to reality. What we need are specific instances. But I'm sure we can both think of a few to use. NASA money VS money to starving African children, for example.

First off, I don't know where the moral obligation rests. It's not so simple as redirecting money to save lives.

One reason is that the money we put into NASA might ultimately be the deciding factor in the survival of the human species. We don't know if that's true or not, so we can't bank on it. But it's a real possibility. This is true of many scientific ventures that seem to be miscellany. Who knows, the money we put into nanotechnology research may save more lives than an equal amount of money given to African children. There's no way to know this.

Another reason is due to what are called "moral hazards". The wisdom can be seen in other areas of life, such as gardening. When you fertilize your garden with Miracle Gro, or other synthetic fertilizers, you're making the plant grow hyper-fast. So fast that it leaves it vulnerable. The cell walls are weaker, the stems are weaker, etc. The plant flourishes, but is not hardy; the whole plant ends up far more susceptible to disease and pests. We also see this in welfare. When you give money to poor people who don't work, you incentivize not working. After a while, you're left with welfare queens who are leeches to society. Regarding African children, what would be the moral culpability if we gave them aid to feed everyone for a few decades, then had catastrophe at home. After the catastrophe, we can't aid them anymore and the food aid suddenly stops. With all the extra mouths to feed, starvation becomes orders of magnitude larger than it was before, and more people die. This is a moral hazard, where we think we're doing good but the unintended consequence is actually worse than the original problem.

So, I don't know where the obligation rests. To know this, we'd need to be much smarter than we are. But what I do know is that it's not as simple as saving lives=good.