Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

Re:Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site le... by pdonis on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @05:20PM (#23316538)

> It's better to accept/concede that you are ending life, but doing so without suffering before there's a neural net that can recognize anything

First, this assumes that such a "neural net" is required for suffering. I personally don't have a problem with that, but making an ironclad scientific case for it is going to be very difficult, since we don't understand how "neural nets" actually produce suffering even in the case of humans with fully developed brains.

Second, by this criterion, it's not just third trimester abortions that should be banned, but abortions at any time after the "neural net" develops. That's a lot earlier than our current jurisprudence draws the line (neural activity can be detected in the brain of a fetus at about six weeks, vs. viability at roughly 24 weeks as more or less the current jurisprudence line), which means that our current jurisprudence is allowing a lot of suffering by this criterion.

So I'm not sure this framing actually makes the argument any easier.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site le... by fossuser on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @05:23PM (#23316565)

Thanks - I think that's a fair criticism and I don't know enough to really comment further.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site le... by fossuser on Tuesday May 26, 2020 @07:38PM (#23317728)

[Edit: Can no longer edit my above comment so putting it in a reply]

I had some time to think, I think you're right and at some point it becomes a utilitarian trade-off where there is no obvious answer, but a lot of factors that can help support/determine what the best policy is.

I think the suffering framing does move the needle away from the 'life is sacred argument' to something more actionable and specific (also honest/consistent with other beliefs often held by that crowd like the death penalty). There is a baked in assumption here that everyone is arguing in good faith though which I don't think is necessarily true (see the edit on my initial comment).

[ Parent | on HN ]