Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

journals.sagepub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 162 posts

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#131

Post by xiphias2 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #109
hairofadog wrote: post #93

I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal , duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument. Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a…

> Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? IMO, yes. That, and, I think it's likely that most aren't self-aware, or are at least less self-aware. > If that's the case, is the life of a person with a high IQ objectively more valuable than the life of a person with a lower IQ? Possibly —it's just that trying to make that judgement opens up enormous possibilities for horrible outcomes! Just to scratch the su…

This thinking is why having AGI is so scary. We are nothing compared to the computers that we are in the process of creating in terms of intelligence and self awareness.

I think AGI will kill humanity and there's nothing we can do about it, but I hope I'm not right.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#132

Post by syril »

BearOso wrote: post #112
emerged wrote: post #62

Children would also choose to save a bowl of ice cream over a bowl of gold nuggets. They aren't making abstract rational/moral choices, they're choosing the thing which will make them feel good. It's effectively the same question as asking them "Do you want to play with that dog, or with that person?"

Interesting that you would choose gold, when its value is mostly manufactured.

So you would choose the ice cream is what you're saying?

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#133

Post by [deleted] »

hairofadog wrote: post #93

I haven't heard a great argument explaining why human life is objectively more valuable than animal life. The most common argument I hear, even from otherwise thoughtful people I know, is something along the lines of "because one is a human and the other is an animal , duh!" but I don't consider that to be a persuasive argument. Is it because we value organisms that are "smarter"? If that's the case, is the life of a…

[deleted]

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#134

Post by Aeronwen »

CreepGin wrote: post #10

Scenario: You are at the Louvre Museum, suddenly there's a big fire. You are standing next to the painting of Mona Lisa that is about to catch on fire. From the corner of your eyes you also see a small kitten collapsed under fallen rubbles and desperately and hopelessly trying to get out. Which one do you rescue first?

Point out the kitten as a distraction, then grab some paintings that aren't behind bullet-proof glass on my way out.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#135

Post by syril »

mcny wrote: post #87
ourmandave wrote: post #27

This is why we don't give a trolley license to 6-year-olds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Lets not be too hasty on this. There are over seven (over eight?) billion (with a B) humans. There are fewer than a billion dogs. Pretty sure the answer is clear: prefer saving dog lives over human lives. Now, if it was chicken vs humans, of course, save human lives. Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the…

One of the dumbest and also craziest things I've read all day. How have you come to value human life so little you psycho?

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#136

Post by wgjordan »

mcny wrote: post #87
ourmandave wrote: post #27

This is why we don't give a trolley license to 6-year-olds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Lets not be too hasty on this. There are over seven (over eight?) billion (with a B) humans. There are fewer than a billion dogs. Pretty sure the answer is clear: prefer saving dog lives over human lives. Now, if it was chicken vs humans, of course, save human lives. Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the…

If your argument is that it's clear we should prefer species preservation over all else, then let's take the giant panda example to its logical extreme. Human population (estimated 7,800,000,000) / giant panda population (1,864) = 4,184,549. So all 'reasonable people' would kill 4 million humans before a single giant panda. Is that really the argument here?

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#137

Post by Viliam1234 »

emerged wrote: post #62

Children would also choose to save a bowl of ice cream over a bowl of gold nuggets. They aren't making abstract rational/moral choices, they're choosing the thing which will make them feel good. It's effectively the same question as asking them "Do you want to play with that dog, or with that person?"

> It's effectively the same question as asking them "Do you want to play with that dog, or with that person?"

Devil's advocate: Isn't this the same for adults? Most of us would prefer a person for a colleague or sexual partner, therefore, let's save humans.

To explore this deeper, consider whether you'd rather save an old person or a young one, attractive or ugly, same sex or opposite sex, ...?

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#138

Post by antisthenes »

bitcharmer wrote: post #107
notRobot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fascinated by your opinion here, aphextron. I have a question for you. Say that you chose a stranger over your dog. Then that stranger went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision? How do you choose to save a stranger's life without knowing anything about them and what they're like?

Let's 100% reverse your argument and see where this takes us, shall we? Say you choose your dog over a stranger. Then your dog went and killed another person. Would you regret your decision?

There's no need to engage in hypotheticals here.

Statistically speaking, dogs are much less likely per capita to injure/kill a human, than a human doing the same to another human.

Humans are violent apes, whereas dogs (with very few breeds being exceptions) have been bred for 5,000 years for docility/companionship.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#139

Post by underyx »

jessep wrote: post #9

My 6 year old twins like to come up with questions about whether you would rather die or have X happen. Recently, one asked, "I know the answer is obvious" and then asked me if I'd rather die or have a bunch of dogs die. And I was like, "I'd rather live and let the dogs die" and she and her sister were appalled. They were like, "obviously you die and save the dogs".

Hmm. It's reasonable to assume one human could save more than "a bunch of" dogs' lives by dedicating their post-decision life to doing so. I wonder what they'd think about this as a reason to save your own life.

Re: Children choose to save dogs over humans, adults chose 1 human over 100 dogs

#140

Post by drivingmenuts »

wgjordan wrote: post #136
mcny wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets not be too hasty on this. There are over seven (over eight?) billion (with a B) humans. There are fewer than a billion dogs. Pretty sure the answer is clear: prefer saving dog lives over human lives. Now, if it was chicken vs humans, of course, save human lives. Now take this to another extreme, would you rather save the life of ONE giant panda or one hundred humans? I think all reasonable people will press the…

If your argument is that it's clear we should prefer species preservation over all else, then let's take the giant panda example to its logical extreme. Human population (estimated 7,800,000,000) / giant panda population (1,864) = 4,184,549. So all 'reasonable people' would kill 4 million humans before a single giant panda. Is that really the argument here?

Why not? Humans are easily replaced. Pandas, not so much.

I’m being somewhat facetious here.

Post reply on HN