Kindly Old Man Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 How do you come to that conclusion? There's lot of other things of value in the universe, but nothing has more value to humanity as a whole than the continued existence of itself. Other species may surely have a different valuation, if they have the sentience to make sure judgments, but that is not the concern of ours. On the flip side, the logical conclusion of your reasoning is that humanity is not worth saving at all costs, which, considering the enormity of the task that would be faced in the hypothetical, means that humanity is not worth saving. That's nihilism, and I reject that utterly. This reasoning.can be used to justify all kinds of atrocities, and I reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 KOM,What other species, that we are aware of, could attempt to ressurect the other species lost to the "Hard Rain"? Isn't that a utilitarian reason to try to keep humanity alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 This reasoning.can be used to justify all kinds of atrocities, and I reject it. Anything can be used to justify all kinds of atrocities. Eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 KOM,What other species, that we are aware of, could attempt to ressurect the other species lost to the "Hard Rain"? Isn't that a utilitarian reason to try to keep humanity alive? Anything can be used to justify all kinds of atrocities. Eh. Sorry, I thought we were just getting on our high horses and rejecting stuff. On a more practical utilitarian level, one can easily justify valuing the current, certain happiness of 7 billion people for two years over the uncertain happiness of a few thousand people + their potential offspring and potential to resurrect other species. It doesn't take much of a discount factor to balance the two sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 "certain happiness?" I'd be pretty damn distraught over everyone and everything I know perishing in a swarm of meteorites after two years, with a slowly increasing frequency of strikes before the two year mark on top of that. And if we're doing simplistic utilitarian maths, on one hand you have a finite amount of "happiness" 'cause everyone's going to die. Other the other, you have the potential for another billion years of happiness or whatever it is until the sun turns into a red giant. The potential happiness in comparison means that trying to save humanity is totally worth it in those terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 You don't seem to understand how discounting works. I'm not going to explain it in detail, but if I get, for example, $1,000/ year for infinite years, I do not have infinite money in terms of current dollars. W/r/t certain vs. uncertain happiness: in my scenario, everyone would do what makes them happiest for the next two years. Let's call the total happiness for those people H1. In the scenario where people are forced by your asserted moral imperative to work towards the goal of saving a few thousand of us, they will have a different amount of happiness, call it H2. I don't think it's really a stretch to say H1 > H2. So, to justify my position, all I have to do is think that H1 - H2 > H3, where H3 is the sum total of happiness for the few thousand people that survive + their descendants etc. And, once again, just because H3 has the potential to be huge doesn't mean it has a huge current value. Maybe they flourish, but maybe they all die off in a year. They might all be miserable. Your assessment is that H3 is huge, and therefore saving humanity is "totally worth it". My assessment is that it isn't. The difference being that your assessment leads you to make demands of other people, disregarding their own assessment of the situation, where mine doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astromech Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Will one of those 2 years be a leap year? I would really love an extra day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 You don't seem to understand how discounting works. I'm not going to explain it in detail, but if I get, for example, $1,000/ year for infinite years, I do not have infinite money in terms of current dollars. W/r/t certain vs. uncertain happiness: in my scenario, everyone would do what makes them happiest for the next two years. Let's call the total happiness for those people H1. In the scenario where people are forced by your asserted moral imperative to work towards the goal of saving a few thousand of us, they will have a different amount of happiness, call it H2. I don't think it's really a stretch to say H1 > H2. So, to justify my position, all I have to do is think that H1 - H2 > H3, where H3 is the sum total of happiness for the few thousand people that survive + their descendants etc. And, once again, just because H3 has the potential to be huge doesn't mean it has a huge current value. Maybe they flourish, but maybe they all die off in a year. They might all be miserable. Your assessment is that H3 is huge, and therefore saving humanity is "totally worth it". My assessment is that it isn't. The difference being that your assessment leads you to make demands of other people, disregarding their own assessment of the situation, where mine doesn't. Except of course that you ignore the fact that everyone will NOT, in fact, be able to do what makes them happiest. Because likely what you have is total anarchy. Even barring that, if everyone is doing what makes them happy, then you have no trash pick up, no sewer, no utilities to speak of, etc etc etc, which results in most people being unable to do what makes them happiest, and instead merely fighting to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Except of course that you ignore the fact that everyone will NOT, in fact, be able to do what makes them happiest. Because likely what you have is total anarchy. Even barring that, if everyone is doing what makes them happy, then you have no trash pick up, no sewer, no utilities to speak of, etc etc etc, which results in most people being unable to do what makes them happiest, and instead merely fighting to survive. That's true, and there's certainly a reasonable discussion to be had about what would maximize people's happiness. Which is different from simply asserting that you know what's best for all of present and future humanity, and pretending to have some moral superiority based on that assertion. If people had said 'uniting the human race in the common goal of saving humanity will lead to greater happiness for the doomed people in their remaining 2 years on Earth', that would be a decent argument, though not necessarily one that I agree with. It's not the argument that was made though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I might trade 2 years of anarchy in exchange for 40 years of living under these moronic and cruel human governmemts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 KOM,I'm sure unrestrained anarchy would be much better than giving the human race the potential to eacape extinction and the potential to rescue other lost species from extinction. We're just being selfish when we say a difficult goal is better than a two year Bacchinal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, all world governments will deny any such disaster will happen to the very end.Those who contradict will be told to shut up and put on their tin foil hat.If they still refuse to shut up, they will be arrested and charged with some sort of terrorism, thanks Patriot Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindly Old Man Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 That's true, and there's certainly a reasonable discussion to be had about what would maximize people's happiness. Which is different from simply asserting that you know what's best for all of present and future humanity, and pretending to have some moral superiority based on that assertion. If people had said 'uniting the human race in the common goal of saving humanity will lead to greater happiness for the doomed people in their remaining 2 years on Earth', that would be a decent argument, though not necessarily one that I agree with. It's not the argument that was made though. KOM,I'm sure unrestrained anarchy would be much better than giving the human race the potential to eacape extinction and the potential to rescue other lost species from extinction. We're just being selfish when we say a difficult goal is better than a two year Bacchinal. Scot, I literally said that the 'it would prevent anarchy'-type argument is a fine argument 2 posts above yours. I just don't think #Save5000Randos is the best way to go about preventing anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.