Why we may expect our successors not to care about suffering

Abstract

Certain values may be less suited for achieving large-scale futures compared to others, especially in scenarios involving space colonization. Values that prioritize suffering reduction can create trade-offs against expansion and resource acquisition, putting civilizations holding such values at a disadvantage against those solely focused on maximizing positive outcomes, regardless of suffering caused. This is termed the Upside-focused Colonist Curse (UCC). The concept of a “disvalue penalty” helps illustrate this: it represents the amount of disvalue an agent would tolerate to achieve maximum value. Suffering-focused agents have a high disvalue penalty, limiting their expansionist potential, while those unconcerned with suffering have a zero penalty. This dynamic creates a selection pressure favoring upside-focused agents in space colonization races, both within and between civilizations. Objections regarding the possibility of prioritizing expansion first and addressing suffering later are addressed, highlighting the limitations of such an approach, particularly concerning immediate risks like inter-agent conflict and the potential instrumental uses of suffering. The implications of UCC suggest that the values of successful colonizers, whether human or alien, might converge on low concern for suffering. This has potential implications for prioritizing existential risks, possibly diminishing the importance of preventing human extinction if alien colonizers would hold similar values. It also suggests current longtermists have a comparative advantage in mitigating suffering risks. – AI-generated abstract.