[thedarkginger]

If it's unethical for billionaire tech founders to focus on the needs of future generations, what moral grounding does, say, environmentalism have?

By this logic, would it not be fair to say that every dollar invested in green solutions comes at the expense of other worthy societal projects that could meaningfully change the status quo?

Those efforts are largely seen as virtuous. Seems to me the only difference here is the origin of the money: tech.

[sp3000]

I agree. And reading through the article, I didn't really see any argument made against why what Musk, Zuckerberg, or Bezos are doing is unethical.

When all is said and done, Bill Gates will go down as the person who saved more human lives in a systematic and deliberate way than any other human in history. We need people like him. We also need people like Jeff Bezos, who seems to naturally operate on a super long-term thinking mental model. I've said it before on here: Thousands of years from now there will be hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of people populating multiple star systems in this galaxy. Their existence will be due to the efforts of people like Bezos and Musk, and the steps they are taking today to address space travel and AI.

[thaumasiotes]

> Bill Gates will go down as the person who saved more human lives in a systematic and deliberate way than any other human in history

There's nothing special about doing it in a systematic and deliberate way. According to legend, the Yellow Emperor taught the Chinese to practice agriculture. In terms of contribution to human life, this would dwarf anything Bill Gates could ever accomplish.

In reality, of course, agriculture arose in an unorganized way, but does that make it less significant?

[focal]

Reminds me of Haber-Bosch, credited for saving billions of lives via synthetic fertilizer. http://www.scienceheroes.com/

[nefitty]

Assuming this is true, it seems reasonable that on larger timescales, and with greater resources, even more future human lives can be saved. It's a refreshing view, considering my main impetus for a long time has been, "Reduce suffering in the universe." Actively trying to create more life is antithetical to that goal, as suffering is an integral experience of a sufficiently intelligent being. I don't mean to say that that's where I've landed, but my mind is beginning to claw at the edified ethical structures it has built up, thanks to this mega-long-term frame.

Does it make sense to make the universe more welcoming to life, if life is the vehicle of suffering? Would Super-AI's possibly have unbounded levels of suffering-potential? If there is a non-zero chance of that being true, is creating AI the ultimate ethical iniquity possible?

The people that were saved by this fertilizer, did their lives contribute to a net reduction in suffering in the universe? I'm doubtful of that but I'm beginning to question the edge value of this Singerian utilitarian philosophy.

[sp3000]

Of course, there is something special about doing it in a systematic and deliberate way. Gates has studied how to best use his money to save the most lives and is doing just that.

Do you think there is a moral and ethical difference between someone who harms someone in a systematic and deliberate way and someone like Oppenheimer who played an essential role in developing nuclear weaponry?