[alancalverd]

There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen. The great thing about grass is that you don't have to take very much with you - it will eventually colonise any earthlike planet if it hadn't already done so before you arrived. Remember to take a few locusts too - they will convert grass into protein.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen.

How many ways have you learned before declaring that there's no better way than grass?
What makes you think that the members of interstellar civilization will have the same physiology and metabolism as current humans?

[alancalverd]

How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.

Since we know of nothing else that could be described as a civilisation, our minimum assumption is that any multiplanetary or interstellar civilisation will be based on terrestrial life forms, of which grass is the most important. It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.

I think that evolution has probably tested most conceivable alternative embodiments of nucleic acids, and what you see is what you get from a very comprehensive R&D program!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.

I think you need to expand your perspective. A few centuries ago people may think that transportation requires horses or camels, while farming requires cows or bulls to plow.
Grass is not especially good to produce useful nutrition for human. Humans can invent better ways to synthesize food materials, i.e. more effective and efficient in converting energy sources like sunlight and raw materials into useful chemicals with less waste. Future humans can edit their own genetic code so they can synthesize vitamins, hence they don't depend on specific types of food.
Perhaps they will build artificial environments like Dyson sphere. In that case, the existence of grass would be irrelevant.

[alancalverd]

"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat.

An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat.

An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.

Once upon a time, most adult humans can't digest milk. Some of us are estimated to carry around 4% of Neanderthal's genes.
Being human is only one instrumental goal to preserve consciousness. Our current limitations should not define our future.

[alancalverd]

You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.

Anyone who has the capability to think about morality, in the broadest sense.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's an advice from a best seller author to write a fictional story.

... your villain should not be bad simply because he’s the bad guy. He must have believable motivations. After all, villains don’t consider themselves villains. They believe their actions are justified.
https://jerryjenkins.com/story-structures/

In real life, persons who are commonly thought as evil also believe that their actions are justified. They made decisions based on what they thought were best options in their respective situations.
People make decisions based on their goals, which are preferred conditions in the future, and actions necessary to get there.

When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals, or they used wrong models of reality, which made them choose the wrong actions in order to achieve their goals. It could also be both. Having more accurate and precise model of reality will give them power and help them achieve their goals more effectively and efficiently. Powerful persons with wrong goals are much more dangerous than weaker persons.

[alancalverd]

You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

Some examples may help you understand what I mean. The Aztecs believed that famine and natural disasters were caused by God's wrath, and they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice. Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct. Their goal to preserve consciousness is aligned with the universal terminal goal, which makes it compatible with the universal moral standard. But their believed model of how the world works makes their actions immoral by most modern moral standards. While if you share their belief of world model, you would also think that they did moral actions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals,

Here's an example. Someone who is scientifically literate, and understand most scientific models relevant to their life. Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It could also be both.

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.

[alancalverd]

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?

Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work?  none known.
The use it.

[alancalverd]

they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.

so they did

Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.

and they did.
Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.

[alancalverd]

Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.

The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.

Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.

You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?

Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work?  none known.
The use it.

It may work for you in your current situation. It may not work for someone else or some other situations.
Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.

Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?