Quid pro quo

[slh]

Here is a question which I haven't been able to answer myself concerning human morality and ethics.

Suppose you (man) and your significant other (woman) were taken with your consent to some other planet in a distant galaxy by an alien species. While there, the powers that be offered to give you the knowledge to solve a lot of the current problems on earth such as theories and principles of 'near' free safe energy, principles and theories and materials needed for faster than light travel, social questions answered. Medicines, robotics, computational, life extension, you name it. Assume that all this information is genuine and works. After giving you all this information in a form that you can use easily, you will be sent back to earth to do as you will.

But they want something from you and her as well, in return. One egg, and some sperm. They explain that they will replicate these sperm and egg ad-infinitum to be used to create baby humans which will be grown and used as their species primary food source planet wide.

Sound like a fair trade? Would you agree to it? How would you feel as you solve most of the earths problems knowing that somewhere out there is a planet full of what is basically your children that are grown like cattle, slaughtered, and eaten in some far away alien buffet?

[spikepipsqueak]

Good question. I would probably agonise about it for days, but my knee jerk reaction is that I couldn't do it.

I would rationalise that by saying that the human race wouldn't cope with such an influx of information and new technology, that such a thing would be destabilising.

But I believe after a period of chaos, the human race could survive anything. I just wouldn't ever be responsible for people being treated like cattle.

[fast]

I just wouldn't ever be responsible for people being treated like cattle.Remember that the next time you're standing in line for a ride at Disney World. All we need are some cow bells.

[Antiplastic]

Here is a question which I haven't been able to answer myself concerning human morality and ethics.

Suppose you (man) and your significant other (woman) were taken with your consent to some other planet in a distant galaxy by an alien species. While there, the powers that be offered to give you the knowledge to solve a lot of the current problems on earth such as theories and principles of 'near' free safe energy, principles and theories and materials needed for faster than light travel, social questions answered. Medicines, robotics, computational, life extension, you name it. Assume that all this information is genuine and works. After giving you all this information in a form that you can use easily, you will be sent back to earth to do as you will.

But they want something from you and her as well, in return. One egg, and some sperm. They explain that they will replicate these sperm and egg ad-infinitum to be used to create baby humans which will be grown and used as their species primary food source planet wide.

Sound like a fair trade? Would you agree to it? How would you feel as you solve most of the earths problems knowing that somewhere out there is a planet full of what is basically your children that are grown like cattle, slaughtered, and eaten in some far away alien buffet?

I don't think you should do this with cows and pigs, so with people it's a no-brainer.

[slh]

I don't necessarily mean that they are treated exactly like cattle are treated here, with the bad conditions any everything. the point is that they are food and nothing else.

[Mikael]

I would make the deal.

[elevator]

I just wouldn't ever be responsible for people being treated like cattle.Remember that the next time you're standing in line for a ride at Disney World. All we need are some cow bells.
Being a huge Disneyland fan, I must point out that at the end of the line you are not slaughtered and butchered for food, however. :D

That said though, I wouldn't do it either. To be the primary cause of the future suffering of countless human beings is to me morally wrong. Now, one might wonder to what extent these aliens would invade our planet and use the human species as food anyway. It seems like, in this hypothetical example, the aliens were willing to work out some kind of peaceful solution and that upon our denial, our demise would be unavoidable anyway. In such a case, I would maybe consider it. Difficult question though, and as of yet, thankfully only a thought experiment.

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd make the deal and then use the newfound technology to destroy these aliens' civilization and round up the survivors to be used as a food supply. The ironic value would far outweigh the countless billions of lives lost.

[Smullyan-esque]

I would argue with the "benefactors".

If they are willing to eat humans, they must not have any respect for the concept of consent. The humans they raise will not consent to being eaten.

So why are they asking for my consent? Why are they not just taking what they want, without making a deal?

And, if they have science at least as advanced as human science, then they should be able to vat-grow human meat, without needing to clone a whole human. Growing whole humans for slaughter sounds irrational.

Seeing as how the deal is based on a logical/moral inconsistency, I would not trust them to follow through on their part. They might give me answers that don't actually work, once I get back home and try to implement them.

So, to answer your question: No, I wouldn't make the deal. The deal sounds fishy, and it isn't wise to make deals with untrustworthy partners.

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Killing sentient creatures without a very good reason isn't acceptable.

[Sapho]

I would offer a counter proposal, that they merely clone the meat and not a complete human. Their technology is obviously up to the task. And with the knowledge that I had gained, I would become Tyrant of the woorld bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Loren Pechtel]

I would offer a counter proposal, that they merely clone the meat and not a complete human. Their technology is obviously up to the task. And with the knowledge that I had gained, I would become Tyrant of the woorld bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, I would have no problem with them cloning the meat. It's only the brains that matter.

[Sapho]

I would offer a counter proposal, that they merely clone the meat and not a complete human. Their technology is obviously up to the task. And with the knowledge that I had gained, I would become Tyrant of the woorld bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, I would have no problem with them cloning the meat. It's only the brains that matter.

If your nice to me I could make you minnister for agriculture.

[I Am Only An Egg]

That's a creative and interesting question.

I would not make the deal. If the goal is to help humanity then it would not be right to make a deal where the number of humans who gain is proportionate to the number who suffer. Also, I am confident that humans could gain the same knowledge over the course of time that they would've recieved from the aliens were I to make the deal. Why pay today for something I could get for free "tomorrow"?

However, the question might be made a bit more interesting/difficult if the aliens said the were only going to produce a couple generations of humans and then stop (all this assuming I could trust the aliens to keep their word and such). In that case I'm not sure what I would say. I would probably still say no.

[spikepipsqueak]

An additional point raised by this.

After several generations being raised as a food supply (no intellectual stimulation or enrichment, succeeding generations killed off before they can pass on accumulated knowledge/wisdom, inbreeding) that population of humans may well cease to display the characteristics we regard as human (inventiveness, independence, self-respect).

Makes you wonder if, thousands of years ago, we stunted/prevented the intellectual dev't of our own food animals.

[GenesisNemesis]

Hey, they're my children. I guess it would be kind of poetic, in a way, sacrificing your children for the survival of the human race. As long as the aliens don't try anything funny, it's a win-win situation. :Cheeky:

[slh]

It is possible to have technology for some things and not another. Perhaps they just plain old don't know how to clone just meat or grow it in a vat. It would be like aliens having the tech to travel interstellar distances in an instant, but can't figure out for the life of them how in the hell a plasma screen tv works. Necessity and all that jazz. For the record, I would agree to the deal.

[faithlessgod]

I would offer a counter proposal, that they merely clone the meat and not a complete human. Their technology is obviously up to the task. And with the knowledge that I had gained, I would become Tyrant of the woorld bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, I would have no problem with them cloning the meat. It's only the brains that matter.

What if the babies were bred specifically for their brains as a delicacy?

[Selam]

The problem I have with the story is that I would imagine that such an advanced civilization that can take you to another galaxy and have such an advanced knowledge of sience and technology would have the knowledge to create their own DNA therefore humanoids without the need to abduct earthlings.

Then if they are so advanced would it not be easier to genetically engineer their own bodies so they would not depend in eating at all? Like maybe maintaining their bodies with pure energy, chemicals, etc... More like plants do in our planet?

Yes, the idea of human cattle is disturbing and I would not go for it anyways no matter how much advanced information I could gain. Taking humans to slaughter would be as disturbing as taking any sentient being to slaughter.

:cool:

[Zenaphobe]

Evil alien atheists that eat babies!

I wouldn't make the deal.

[Apostate1970]

This is just a really uninteresting instance of something called a "utilitarian paradox".

[slh]

This is just a really uninteresting instance of something called a "utilitarian paradox".

Sorry for the boring scenario. I'll google "utilitarian paradox" and come up with something better in the future.

Of course, along with that criticism, I would have appreciated your response and comments pertaining to the original post.

[Apostate1970]

I'm not going to answer your question because there are just far too many variables for any answer to be meaningful. How many kids? What state of development are they in? Are there alternative food sources for the aliens and what efforts have been or will be made to utlize those? Exactly what is the benefit the aliens are giving and how can we reasonably expect that to be used? Will existing human lives be saved by taking the aliens' deal or will only future humans be benefited? etc. etc. Just far too many others to ask.

A good paradox would have pared down all these variables and sharpened up all these fuzzy edges. The whole point of these sorts of paradoxes is that, even though they describe remarkably clear choices and simple situations (which yours does not) they still test our moral intuitions and put us in what we feel to be a real moral dilemma. Our tendency to answer then really discloses something about how our moral reasoning works.

Here is just one example of many that could be given regarding how people err in thinking about these issues... the following extended quote is from this site.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/the-intuitions.html

When you've read enough research on scope insensitivity - people will pay only 28% more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in Ontario than one area, people will pay the same amount to save 50,000 lives as 5,000 lives... that sort of thing...

Well, the worst case of scope insensitivity I've ever heard of was described here by Slovic:

Other recent research shows similar results. Two Israeli psychologists asked people to contribute to a costly life-saving treatment. They could offer that contribution to a group of eight sick children, or to an individual child selected from the group. The target amount needed to save the child (or children) was the same in both cases. Contributions to individual group members far outweighed the contributions to the entire group.

There's other research along similar lines, but I'm just presenting one example, 'cause, y'know, eight examples would probably have less impact.

If you know the general experimental paradigm, then the reason for the above behavior is pretty obvious - focusing your attention on a single child creates more emotional arousal than trying to distribute attention around eight children simultaneously. So people are willing to pay more to help one child than to help eight.

Now, you could look at this intuition, and think it was revealing some kind of incredibly deep moral truth which shows that one child's good fortune is somehow devalued by the other children's good fortune.

But what about the billions of other children in the world? Why isn't it a bad idea to help this one child, when that causes the value of all the other children to go down? How can it be significantly better to have 1,329,342,410 happy children than 1,329,342,409, but then somewhat worse to have seven more at 1,329,342,417?

Or you could look at that and say: "The intuition is wrong: the brain can't successfully multiply by eight and get a larger quantity than it started with. But it ought to, normatively speaking."

And once you realize that the brain can't multiply by eight, then the other cases of scope neglect stop seeming to reveal some fundamental truth about 50,000 lives being worth just the same effort as 5,000 lives, or whatever. You don't get the impression you're looking at the revelation of a deep moral truth about nonagglomerative utilities. It's just that the brain doesn't goddamn multiply.