Utility Taxonomy
There is a strong consensus that members of certain other species have non-zero utility. However, I have not seen any attempts, however crude and approximate, to produce a "utility taxonomy", i.e. a classification of species by the relative amounts of utility their members are either capable of experiencing or are likely to experience during a normal state of being.
Having a utility taxonomy is essential to our efforts to understand how to maximize utility on this planet. We need to know how substantial the interests of livestock animals are as we attempt to optimize our agricultural practices. We need to know how much the interests of "wildlife" animals are worth as we consider actions that would disrupt their ecosystems. It might even be worth knowing whether we should smash and kill a mosquito whose presence we found mildly annoying.
In the absence of an existing utility taxonomy, let's make our own. I'll get things started, and we can refine it in the comment thread. Post anything you think may be helpful. As always, if you prefer to remain anonymous or otherwise don't want to use the comment thread, then email me at sethbaum [at] gmail.com.
One final thought before beginning: Humanity, ourselves included, really may not have a reasonable solution to this problem at present. Our work may prove completely off the mark. Thus, we should proceed with caution. However, we should proceed, as we've got to start somewhere with this. Personally, it feels strange trying to develop a system based on little more than crude intuition. So be it, I suppose.
---------
Some initial estimates:
I'll make the seemingly safe assumption that organisms that have no neurons also have no utility. Thus, everything that's not an animal gets a scaling factor of zero. Sponges, which are classified as animals, have no neurons and thus also get a zero. Humans get a one. Everything else gets something in between a zero and a one.
My guess is that other primates are pretty close to a one, maybe a 0.95. Beyond that, I just don't know.
---------
Some thoughts on the scaling system:
The post Total Human Earth Utility used a scale from zero to one, which was a normalized (scaled/divided by ten) version of the zero to ten scale used in the HPI list. In the post, zero was the minimum possible human utility level and one was the maximum. This scale makes what I believe to be a bad assumption that there is no negative utility. (For more on negative utility see the posts Utility Curves and Vegetarianism And Negative Utility.)
An option that may be convenient is to use a zero to one or zero to ten scale for each species and then scale those values based on how strong that species's utility is. In other words, when evaluating the well being of members of specific species, we can use the same zero to one/ten scale, and then when we need to compare values across species, we scale them accordingly.
This scaling may or may not be linear. If it was linear, then we could use the same scaling factor for all utility levels. If it was nonlinear, then the scaling factor would be a function of utility level. For example, (on a zero to ten scale):
Linear:
Scaling factor between humans and cows is 2,
i.e. (human utility) = 2 * (cow utility)
A cow 1 corresponds to a human 2.
A cow 2 corresponds to a human 4.
A cow 3 corresponds to a human 6.
etc.
Nonlinear (Quadratic):
Scaling factor between humans and cows is equal to the cow utility,
i.e. (human utility) = (cow utility) * (cow utility) = (cow utility)^2
A cow 1 corresponds to a human 1.
A cow 2 corresponds to a human 4.
A cow 3 corresponds to a human 9.
etc.
Nonlinear (General):
Human utility level is some function of cow utility level,
i.e. (human utility) = f(cow utility)
A sound first step would be estimating linear scaling factors.
In our estimates, we should make sure to note if we're estimating typical levels to potential levels. For example, on the HPI zero to ten scale, humans have the potential to experience a ten but typically experience around a six. (For more on this see the post Population Utility Distribution.)
Having a utility taxonomy is essential to our efforts to understand how to maximize utility on this planet. We need to know how substantial the interests of livestock animals are as we attempt to optimize our agricultural practices. We need to know how much the interests of "wildlife" animals are worth as we consider actions that would disrupt their ecosystems. It might even be worth knowing whether we should smash and kill a mosquito whose presence we found mildly annoying.
In the absence of an existing utility taxonomy, let's make our own. I'll get things started, and we can refine it in the comment thread. Post anything you think may be helpful. As always, if you prefer to remain anonymous or otherwise don't want to use the comment thread, then email me at sethbaum [at] gmail.com.
One final thought before beginning: Humanity, ourselves included, really may not have a reasonable solution to this problem at present. Our work may prove completely off the mark. Thus, we should proceed with caution. However, we should proceed, as we've got to start somewhere with this. Personally, it feels strange trying to develop a system based on little more than crude intuition. So be it, I suppose.
---------
Some initial estimates:
I'll make the seemingly safe assumption that organisms that have no neurons also have no utility. Thus, everything that's not an animal gets a scaling factor of zero. Sponges, which are classified as animals, have no neurons and thus also get a zero. Humans get a one. Everything else gets something in between a zero and a one.
My guess is that other primates are pretty close to a one, maybe a 0.95. Beyond that, I just don't know.
---------
Some thoughts on the scaling system:
The post Total Human Earth Utility used a scale from zero to one, which was a normalized (scaled/divided by ten) version of the zero to ten scale used in the HPI list. In the post, zero was the minimum possible human utility level and one was the maximum. This scale makes what I believe to be a bad assumption that there is no negative utility. (For more on negative utility see the posts Utility Curves and Vegetarianism And Negative Utility.)
An option that may be convenient is to use a zero to one or zero to ten scale for each species and then scale those values based on how strong that species's utility is. In other words, when evaluating the well being of members of specific species, we can use the same zero to one/ten scale, and then when we need to compare values across species, we scale them accordingly.
This scaling may or may not be linear. If it was linear, then we could use the same scaling factor for all utility levels. If it was nonlinear, then the scaling factor would be a function of utility level. For example, (on a zero to ten scale):
Linear:
Scaling factor between humans and cows is 2,
i.e. (human utility) = 2 * (cow utility)
A cow 1 corresponds to a human 2.
A cow 2 corresponds to a human 4.
A cow 3 corresponds to a human 6.
etc.
Nonlinear (Quadratic):
Scaling factor between humans and cows is equal to the cow utility,
i.e. (human utility) = (cow utility) * (cow utility) = (cow utility)^2
A cow 1 corresponds to a human 1.
A cow 2 corresponds to a human 4.
A cow 3 corresponds to a human 9.
etc.
Nonlinear (General):
Human utility level is some function of cow utility level,
i.e. (human utility) = f(cow utility)
A sound first step would be estimating linear scaling factors.
In our estimates, we should make sure to note if we're estimating typical levels to potential levels. For example, on the HPI zero to ten scale, humans have the potential to experience a ten but typically experience around a six. (For more on this see the post Population Utility Distribution.)
posted by Seth Baum at 10:32 AM
2 Comments:
It is quite simple.
Low intellectual life simply needs to go. Then we will put in place a verbal detection measuring sistem.
I think it's not so simple as a "scaling factor".
I would put cows on a very low utility level for a number of reasons.
We don't see much evidence that genuinely care for prolonging their lives or the lives of others, past maternal instincts of course. They have no real goals to work towards, they do little but graze all day. It's difficulty to assign any real utility to this.
A lot of animals that get called "intelligent" aren't much better - pigs for isntance, may have the capacity for intelligence, but still don't seem to have much in the way of emotional drive.
"Pets" seem to have much more, as they pick it up from humans. I think you may be somewhat ignoring the effect that Memes have on us, it's information that counts as well as our brain structure.
Just my thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home