Thanks very much for taking the time to respond, Jacob!
I think, given the practical uncertainties of the situation, I feel pretty comfortable aiming for / punting to some more general ""process of wise deliberation" over directly locking my current best guess into the cosmos.
A useful analogy may be how people think they want their life to look like when they're old. The reality of how one's life will actually look may be uncertain, it's possible that one will figure out some stuff that may change how one wants their life to be in old age, and there is nothing wrong with taking a process of wise deliberation along the way in one's life. Nonetheless, having an aim that one has reasoned through can help one in that process of wise deliberation on the way to old age.
"sentience" is a bit tricky for me to parse, but I will put in for positively valenced subjective experience :)
I wouldn't necessarily say it need be positively valenced, but rather at least not negatively valenced. Neutral may suffice.
There are probably things that would count as "knowledge" to me, but which are so trivial that I wouldn't necessarily care about them much. But, y'know, I will put in for the practical necessity of learning more about the universe as well as the aesthetic/ profound beauty of discovery the rules of the universe and the nature of nature.
Perhaps every little trivial thing wouldn't be necessary to know. But when thinking in terms of something with unimaginable cognitive capacity and limitless time, even trivial things might be worth knowing.
There is a lot to be said about the "end state" which you don't really mention here. Like, for example, I think it is good for people to be really, exceptionally happy if we can swing it. I don't know how to think about population ethics honestly.
Sure! I'm happy to talk address that. I assume at that time there need not be life as we know it. I'm not necessarily opposed to it in addition to what I've laid out, but I don't think it's particularly important when we're thinking about time spans of googols of years.
people often intrinsically value reproducing
Just like humans are the byproduct of an evolutionary process, so is the human and animal desire to reproduce. This is also something I'm not necessarily opposed to but also don't think is particularly important to maintain in the timescales we're talking about. For instance, we are already seeing wealthy human societies experience sub-replacement fertility. Perhaps once all of humanity is wealthy in a few centuries or millennia, the whole world will experience sub-replacement fertility? I can't say, but I view these as relatively short-term concerns.
I have no reasonable way out of this conundrum and I hate biting the "population control" bullet. ... I think concerns in this general vein about the resources people use and the limits to growth are also pretty closely ties to the not uncommon concerns people have around over population / climate heads not wanting to have kids. ... Also, to make it less abstract, I will admit that my morals / impulses are fundamentally quite natalist and I would quite like to be a Dad some day. Even if we grant that resource growth exceeds population growth for now, it seems hard to escape the Malthusian trap forever and I think this is a very fundamental tension in the limit.
I tend to not be too concerned about the issues raised by anti-natalists regarding overpopulation and climate and tend to be pretty bullish on resource and technological growth exceeding population growth for the foreseeable future. I've counseled friends of mine who are concerned about climate change they shouldn't be afraid to have kids on that basis, for example. However, I tend to prioritize a different set of concerns when thinking about issues decades or centuries into the future versus periods of googols of years into the future. When thinking about those kinds of timespans, the concerns we prioritize on a day-to-day basis or century-to-century basis look small in comparison.
Again, thank you very much for the feedback Jacob. Much appreciated!
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond, Jacob!
A useful analogy may be how people think they want their life to look like when they're old. The reality of how one's life will actually look may be uncertain, it's possible that one will figure out some stuff that may change how one wants their life to be in old age, and there is nothing wrong with taking a process of wise deliberation along the way in one's life. Nonetheless, having an aim that one has reasoned through can help one in that process of wise deliberation on the way to old age.
I wouldn't necessarily say it need be positively valenced, but rather at least not negatively valenced. Neutral may suffice.
Perhaps every little trivial thing wouldn't be necessary to know. But when thinking in terms of something with unimaginable cognitive capacity and limitless time, even trivial things might be worth knowing.
Sure! I'm happy to talk address that. I assume at that time there need not be life as we know it. I'm not necessarily opposed to it in addition to what I've laid out, but I don't think it's particularly important when we're thinking about time spans of googols of years.
Just like humans are the byproduct of an evolutionary process, so is the human and animal desire to reproduce. This is also something I'm not necessarily opposed to but also don't think is particularly important to maintain in the timescales we're talking about. For instance, we are already seeing wealthy human societies experience sub-replacement fertility. Perhaps once all of humanity is wealthy in a few centuries or millennia, the whole world will experience sub-replacement fertility? I can't say, but I view these as relatively short-term concerns.
I tend to not be too concerned about the issues raised by anti-natalists regarding overpopulation and climate and tend to be pretty bullish on resource and technological growth exceeding population growth for the foreseeable future. I've counseled friends of mine who are concerned about climate change they shouldn't be afraid to have kids on that basis, for example. However, I tend to prioritize a different set of concerns when thinking about issues decades or centuries into the future versus periods of googols of years into the future. When thinking about those kinds of timespans, the concerns we prioritize on a day-to-day basis or century-to-century basis look small in comparison.
Again, thank you very much for the feedback Jacob. Much appreciated!