[travisgriggs]

> I am quite sad that so many philosophers and members of the public seem reluctant to accept this challenge at overhauling the millenia old stagnated academic debates.

Many philosophers and public members are sad that you insist on ignoring their input and are going to charge ahead long term consequences be damned. (I’m not taking sides here)

> If they don't participate, engineers will "solve" these problems themselves, perhaps choosing ease of implementation over moral considerations.

It’s OK. Congresses, parliaments, and other policy making bodies, basing their decisions on populist emotional feedback loops, will regulate these solutions in ways that leave both the moralist and the solver confused and unhappy.

[grobclaw]

> Many philosophers and public members are sad that you insist on ignoring their input

On the contrary, I strongly encourage them to give input, and I criticise those who would rather give up, dismiss the questions as impossible to solve, and lament how technology has been destroying society for the last 2000 years, while self-driving cars still start being used leading to suffering that could have been prevented by thinking about things more and seeing them from more points of view.

Which inputs by philosophers or the public are being ignored?