Reg

Yes indeed unseen. I should have said “intelligent” and/or “self-aware”.

Thank you Kristina for actually answering the question. I particularly like:

the preservation of life doesn’t, on its own, trump reduction in suffering

Davis wrote:
There is zero possibility they will ever evolve sentience (or develop beyond a planet of suffering creatures).

I’m a little puzzled. How do these creatures suffer at all if, indeed, they have yet to evolve sentience, given that “sentience” means “the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively” (from Wikipedia)?

Perhaps…[Read more]

My first inclination is to object to some of the premises because that’s the sort of person I am. However, given the variables in place:

Q1: Would I?
Yes, in this hypothetical scenario. The chief consideration is that the preservation of life doesn’t, on its own, trump reduction in suffering.

Q2: Would resource benefits at the expense of the…[Read more]

Oh dear. It seems my reply also disappeared.

Pleasure is part of the tool box that has emerged in Earthly evolution as an aid to natural selection. For non-sentient beings I don’t think pleasure and pain are particularly balanced they both play different roles in natural selection. But there is no reason why pleasure MUST be a part of evolution.…[Read more]

@davis, you removed my entire reply lol.

Is not “suffering less” equivalent to “pleasure”?  Pleasure is a motivator because it indicates moving towards fitness benefits.

.

Until recently, Portland’s Chief of Police was an outlaw.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
My friend David lost his ID. Now we just call him Dav. Ok, Ok, I will leave now.

;_) I know a guy whose name is Adam Baum.

My friend David lost his ID. Now we just call him Dav.

Ok, Ok, I will leave now.