[alancalverd]

The fact that modern humans have better chance to extend consciousness both in time and space domain, compared to medieval and prehistoric era indicates that on average people have positive impacts to the society.

Peering through the bullshit about consciousness, I think you are implying that any and all knowledge makes all people behave better towards one another. The history of the 20th and 21st centuries does not support that conclusion. The more the Gestapo, KGB, Special Branch, Stasi, CIA......knew, the more obnoxious they became.

Every shell and rocket that hits a civilian target in Ukraine, Syria or Iran is the product of scientific endeavor and engineering genius; in self-styled civilised countries like the UK our massive improvements in life extension mean that people who want to die are made to live in pain and indignity; the worldwide availability of online religious knowledge has led to death and destruction on a hitherto unprecedented scale.

[alancalverd]

I have a more specific conditions than merely "others". I make a rational choice based on how I think future conscious entities will judge me. The time frame is set for as far away future as can be reliably conceived.

Beware! No so long ago, species other than humans were considered not to have feelings or to suffer real pain, and within living memory it was widely believed that anyone with a black skin was put on earth to serve anyone with a white skin. 

Any prediction of the likely judgement of future beings, becomes decidedly unreliable beyond about 5 years.   

When the human race moves towards its self-imposed extinction, the dominant conscious entities will probably be cockroaches, with a very different attitude to human life (all live humans are enemies, all dead humans are food) and even their own cannibalism.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Peering through the bullshit about consciousness, I think you are implying that any and all knowledge makes all people behave better towards one another.

You seem to confuse between all and average.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the worldwide availability of online religious knowledge has led to death and destruction on a hitherto unprecedented scale.

You are the one who said that death is a good thing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Beware! No so long ago, species other than humans were considered not to have feelings or to suffer real pain, and within living memory it was widely believed that anyone with a black skin was put on earth to serve anyone with a white skin. 

Now we know better.

Any prediction of the likely judgement of future beings, becomes decidedly unreliable beyond about 5 years. 

The details might be hard to predict, but the fundamental things are more predictable. That's how some futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Tony Seba can make pretty good predictions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When the human race moves towards its self-imposed extinction, the dominant conscious entities will probably be cockroaches, with a very different attitude to human life (all live humans are enemies, all dead humans are food) and even their own cannibalism.

You don't seem to follow news in technology. Humans are predicted to become multiplanetary within this century. Genetic engineering will allow humans to be like whatever they want to be. Age related diseases would be cured. Human civilization has a chance to outlive the earth.
People say that earth is the cradle of life. But no one should live in the cradle forever. Currently, it's also our prison. And sooner or later it will kill all of its prisoners. That's why we should prepare to get free before it happens.

[alancalverd]

Nobody has been to the moon in nearly 50 years, and for as long as folk are obsessed with the need to come back, nobody is going anywhere else in the foreseeable future.

As for "now we know better", what's your opinion of the benefit to humanity  of the mass surveillance of the Chinese population by facial recognition? Do you think that the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong and the repression of criticism in mainland China is a Good Thing? And just because Western attitudes have changed in one direction, who is to say that they won't reverse direction? How has the growth of technology and cultural awareness benefitted Muslims in India in the last couple of years? How has the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea, and of reliable nerve agents by Russia,  benefitted anyone and improved the reliability of moral judgement?

[alancalverd]

Genetic engineering will allow humans to be like whatever they want to be.

No. By definition genetic engineering may give humans the ability to give birth to something else but it won't change the parents into what they would like to be.

[alancalverd]

Age related diseases would be cured.

And we'd all live for ever. Can you imagine growing up in a world where 99.99% of the population will always be older than you? What happens to ambition, or even delivery, if there's no time limit on anything you do?  Are you going to introduce death squads to maintain a viable population distribution, or just let the elderly (i.e. everyone else) eat everything?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As for "now we know better", what's your opinion of the benefit to humanity  of the mass surveillance of the Chinese population by facial recognition? Do you think that the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong and the repression of criticism in mainland China is a Good Thing? And just because Western attitudes have changed in one direction, who is to say that they won't reverse direction? How has the growth of technology and cultural awareness benefitted Muslims in India in the last couple of years? How has the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea, and of reliable nerve agents by Russia,  benefitted anyone and improved the reliability of moral judgement?

Those are exactly why I started to discuss about universal morality based on the universal terminal goal. Having a powerful tool without knowing what to do with it is dangerous. It's like a little kid getting access to guns. It's time to ask any politicians about their terminal goal and what are their plans to achieve it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Age related diseases would be cured.

And we'd all live for ever. Can you imagine growing up in a world where 99.99% of the population will always be older than you? What happens to ambition, or even delivery, if there's no time limit on anything you do?  Are you going to introduce death squads to maintain a viable population distribution, or just let the elderly (i.e. everyone else) eat everything?

Not really. Accidents will happen and someone will still die. Having back ups can reduce the probability that the whole system get destroyed. 
We need to find optimal balance using limited resources, and be aware of diminishing marginal utility.
Should we destroy the old ones if they can still be repaired with reasonable price? Should we produce new ones in excess of what's actually needed?

The word terminal in the term universal terminal goal emphasizes time dimension over space and the others. It's better to have a finite number of conscious entities for infinite time rather than infinite number of conscious entities for a finite amount of time.

[alancalverd]

Accidental death runs at around 5000 per year in the UK and is decreasing. Unless you make pregnancy subject to a very strict licensed lottery (currently there are about 1,000,000 "winning tickets" per year), you can't propose accidents as a serious means to stabilise the population.

[alancalverd]

It's time to ask any politicians about their terminal goal and what are their plans to achieve it.

In a democracy: to be re-elected. In a dictatorship: not to be murdered.

The acquisition and deployment of any technology for the suppression or elimination of your chosen public enemy is an effective means to that end. Sometimes the chosen enemy is within (more usually in a dictatorship), sometimes external (righting perceived wrongs overseas is very popular with democrats).  Margaret Thatcher chose both. The important characteristic is to choose an enemy you can beat, then sell them as a threat to the public. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

you make pregnancy subject to a very strict licensed lottery

What if it's licensed to those who are willing and can afford to raise the children until they become independent/productive, or can find someone else to help them?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In a democracy: to be re-elected. In a dictatorship: not to be murdered.

Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media. They are unlikely to achieve their goals.
For a dictator, the best way not to be murdered is by resignation.

[alancalverd]

you make pregnancy subject to a very strict licensed lottery

What if it's licensed to those who are willing and can afford to raise the children until they become independent/productive, or can find someone else to help them?

Exactly what I was preaching in this forum years ago. My plan was (still is) to abolish all child benefits, maternity pay etc.,  and pay every woman £500 or so every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. You get one "free shot" that you can exercise at any time. This should reduce the birthrate towards half the replacement rate and thus reduce the population to around one fifth of its current level within 100 years. That figure is indefinitely sustainable in the UK  at the current or better standard of living, using native natural resources only.

[alancalverd]

Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media.

Which is why it is up to us to say it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media.

Which is why it is up to us to say it.

We can infer their terminal goals from the decisions they made or plan to make.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Exactly what I was preaching in this forum years ago. My plan was (still is) to abolish all child benefits, maternity pay etc.,  and pay every woman £500 or so every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. You get one "free shot" that you can exercise at any time. This should reduce the birthrate towards half the replacement rate and thus reduce the population to around one fifth of its current level within 100 years. That figure is indefinitely sustainable in the UK  at the current or better standard of living, using native natural resources only.

What should be done to those who violate it?  What should be done to their kids?
What should be done to immigrants?

[alancalverd]

There is no concept of "violation" under my scheme. You can carry one pregnancy to term without losing the grant. You are wholly responsible for the upkeep of your children (heath services and education remain free of charge), and the state already has means in place for dealing with neglect.

Migrant workers are essential to agriculture and visiting students clearly gain more from the experience if they can earn money during their stay. So you issue temporary work permits and visas just as we used to do in the 1950s and 60s, then they go home. This gives us the opportunity to destroy the current slave trade: migrant workers are accommodated free of charge in decent government barracks  - we have plenty in repairable condition. You get 10% of your weekly pay as pocket money and the remaining 90% when you leave the country.

Immigrants are people who intend to stay and seek citizenship, and fall into two categories: genuine refugees and selected professionals.  Not a problem to distinguish in the case of an island nation, since refugees must be accommodated under the UN charter in the first safe country they reach, and that is clearly not the UK for anyone travelling overland. A very few will have been selected and fished out of a trouble spot by the British armed forces or secret services and thus count as guests with refugee status who may be invited to immigrate.  Professional invitees will need an exceptional case to explain why they cannot be given a renewable work permit or business visa with no  right to reside.