Ethical Diets

While I think trying to set up equilibria that will be robust against a multipolar takeoff is interesting, I don't think your example is a conclusion you would come to if you weren't already concerned about animal rights.

Much more plausible is that we should start the strict enforcement of property rights. Any level of redistribution could result in all wealth held by flesh-and-blood humans being 'redistributed' to uploads in light of their huge number.

If the way an AGI treats us would depend upon the way we treat animals, the problem of a Friendly AI would already be partially solved. But there's no way to think it will: if you don't want an AI to treat the way you treat a cow, then don't program it that way.

The amount of suffering introduced by factory-farming is entirely negligible compared to the amount of wild-animal suffering that's been taking place as long as life has existed, continues to take place, and will continue to take place unless we cause a wholesale extinction of the Earth's biosphere.

Unless you're prepared to eradicate animal life, no personal choice you ever make will have a meaningful impact on the amount of suffering in the universe.

Genetic experimentation on cows gives them super-human intelligence, and they quickly come to rule the earth. Alas, these cows' moral beliefs cause them to care about human welfare as much as the average human cares about cows. I hope these cows develop a taste for human flesh and milk so they have an incentive to keep lots of us around.

Does anyone know a convenient name for my planned diet?

Orthorexia, the belief that in addition to nutrient values food also contains ethical values. An orthorexic says humans should or should not eat certain things in certain ways because of rights; rights of the eater, rights of the eaten. That rights exist and are known and are universal and can be acted on are all considered axiomatic. Orthorexia can be religious (Genesis 1:30, Quran Chapter 5 Verse 96, Anguttara Nikaya 3.38 Sukhamala Sutta, etc.) and it can be secular (as appears in your case).

Orthorexia holds axiomatic (1) that the emotions of the individual are the same emotions that other humans feel, and (2) that universal human emotions are shared by some or all other living beings. By the first axiom, what is good for the individual is good for others and what is bad for the individual is bad for others. But the good of the individual does not necessarily apply to others; to claim so is an error of category. That which is good for me is that which is good for me. By the second axiom, the unnecessary bridging of the emotions of the individual to others is expanded to the non-human. But the good of humans, even if known and actionable, would not necessarily and naturally be the good of non-humans. I for one would push the 'destroy all human-preying tapeworms' button if given the chance. Bad for all human-preying tapeworms, good for this human.

Orthorexia claims that decisions about food have an influence outside the eater and the eaten, but orthorexia is selective about how far that influence is measured. In the long run - the long, long, long run - it is not possible for any (or all) humans to eat (or not eat) anything and have it influence things more or less than any other choices made in an infinite universe. Given enough time and space (and in an infinite universe that's what we have), all possibilities occur. Orthorexia measures the influence of food choices out far enough to get the desired positive or negative reading then stops.

It is a fine thing to have ideas about what one does and does not eat, and to act on those ideas, and to put those ideas before others for criticism. Orthorexia looks for foundations that are not there and outcomes that do not appear. I suggest it might be more simple, accurate and honest to say what one prefers or dislikes and leave it at that.

I offer a grand prize to the first or loudest reply that misrepresents the above in the following way: I claim rights (in food and elsewhere) do not exist, therefore I claim I have the right (in food and elsewhere) to do something (eat this or that, kill this or that, etc.). Example: 'you say animals have no right to not be eaten, so you must be saying you have the right to eat them.' That is false, but a grand prize is offered for making that misrepresentation.

Eat less meat.

It is better for one's health and the planet in terms of emissionsto eat less meat as well.

there's no convenient name unfortunately. you could more or less call it paleo, but paleo is more concerned with the health benefits for the human than the health benefits for the animal.

Your writing style feels very disjointed. You keep switching arguments without making it clear when you're starting from a new direction. With that said, I've had similar thoughts to paragraph 2 (the superintelligence section) before. Indeed, slaughtering an animal is such a huge ethical decision that I think it relates to a ton of other major moral decisions; how will superintelligences react to us being just one such example.

To reverse that argument, how should we treat a superintelligence? The huge separation most create between animals and man implies we should treat them with an almost reverence, but the widespread belief in human equality implies almost no distinction between us (this is my view). Strangely, I suspect a ton of people believe we should treat them as beneath humans. People seem to be more convinced by "the AI-box wouldn't work" arguments than "the AI-box amounts to slavery" arguments. I'm not sure how to make this fit.

My solution: As intelligence increases, so too does the danger they impose, and therefore SIs should have significantly fewer rights. However, this decrease is so gradual that no natural human will ever require a curtailing of their rights. Later genetically engineered and cybernetically enhanced humans will be a different story. I don't believe this at all, so I'm open to alternatives. Does anybody here believe SIs should have fewer rights than humans?