In defence of extreme tolerance.

Would you rather have a universe in which many different kinds of life thrive, each maximising their own utility function, or would you rather have a universe where only we and those who think like us live, where others were exterminated long ago.

[Let's assume (idiotically) that if we're in a position to decide their fate, the others don't pose a threat to us.]

Most people prefer option 1. After all, isn't letting others live in  peace provided they let us do the same good and genocide evil?

It's not that simple.

Some people are evil. Really evil. Maybe that doesn't phase you. Maybe like me and a few others, you believe in freedom of conscience and thought. It's not that easy. Some kinds of evil require the suffering of others. There can be no masters without slaves. What then? Do you still believe in tolerance? Even when it means tolerating suffering and subjugation, hate and horror? In the words of a close friend, would you accept the existence of planet ISIS and minorities on that planet for the masters to abuse?

At this point, most say no. No planet ISIS. No preference satisfaction where preferences conflict.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is twofold. One is that, applied generally, it leads to a world where the strongest satisfy their utility function at the expense of the weak. Might should not equal right, at least not from my utility function. The second is broader. Deciding that certain forms of interactions are bad, that diversity is good but only up to a certain point means no diversity at all. The boundaries you draw between "private" and "public" issues, even on the galactic scale, are not universal or rooted in reality. They are the product of a specific chain of causation leading to a specific utility function. Your decision to impose on others based on that value is no different than the decision of a paperclip maximiser to impose on you when the opportunity cost in terms of paperclips of your existence become too high.

When I was younger, I read a bit about deep ecology and I found it ludicrous. Accepting nature means accepting the way nature trades off values? Why? What if everyone involved, animals and humans alike, dislike the system as it is. What if the constant death tournament that is evolution leads to a cycle of suffering and death, to the end of intelligence and to a solar system covered in a writhing mass of worms struggling to get closer to the sun only to drown and be devoured by others. Am I meant to accept this simply because it happens to exist? The answer then seemed to be no. I still think the deep ecologists were idiots. The right answer means little without the reasoning to back it up. [Maybe. Maybe reasoning or lack therof should be judged solely by the answers it produces].

My views now are in flux. I still hold contradictory beliefs as I continue to walk down both paths, but one path leads to a future where my species act as guardians of diversity, maximising the kinds of life and environment.

Further research:

• Beyond Planet ISIS: Diversity and allowing the existence of literal hells?
• The impossibility of escape. lock-in to our own utility function
• Beyond our utility function: Life is subjective. "Life exists on scales and in forms we do not recognize"