What will destroy human life on earth?

Now for a more interesting aspect of the question: does it matter if the human race goes extinct?
Lets say the scenario where humans have below replacement level birth rates to extinction takes place. Nobody is being massacred, there is no global suffering, would it be a 'bad' thing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now for a more interesting aspect of the question: does it matter if the human race goes extinct?
Lets say the scenario where humans have below replacement level birth rates to extinction takes place. Nobody is being massacred, there is no global suffering, would it be a 'bad' thing?

I think what is 'bad' is ultimately subjective and dependent on how one feels about it but note that what we feel doesn't come from the rational mind thus what is bad cannot be defined logically. I think what is bad is ultimately subjective even where and when and where there is general agreement on what is bad. Baring all that in mind, I would say it is 'bad' at least from my personal perspective because I feel bad about the thought of that ever happening. I do not think claiming it to be bad requires a logical justification, only an emotional one.
So, yes, I would say it would be a 'bad' thing to happen even if it doesn't involve suffering.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now for a more interesting aspect of the question: does it matter if the human race goes extinct?
Lets say the scenario where humans have below replacement level birth rates to extinction takes place. Nobody is being massacred, there is no global suffering, would it be a 'bad' thing?

It would just be the next thing.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Googlefuddle"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am actually quite concerned about artificial intelligence. Once artificial intelligence exceeding that of humans becomes common, if we allow it to be replicated, it will start to evolve and it will evolve towards a tendency of successful self replication (as all life forms do). This may turn out to be detrimental to us.

It's unlikely to 'evolve' in the evolutionary sense as self re-design and
improvement is faster and more effective.

The important trick with AGI [Artificial General Inteligence] which is what
we are really talking about is that if you build Friendly AGI [FAGI] then
you are fine as the FAGI will make damn sure that any other AGI it makes
are also Friendly.

However any AGI that isn't Friendly is by definition unfriendly and is a
massive risk to our existence.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Isnt there a threat from oscillating poles and the subsequent degradation of the Van Allen belt?

(Off the top of my head and not googled ... I'll do that tomorrow ... goodnight)

Not a threat to our existence... quite possibly a threat to our satellites/way of life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that it is not an imminent danger, the population still has to grow to around 11 billion simply due to better health and an aging population.
However, once it starts to fall, it may be quite rapid. I believe Japans population is falling dramatically - up to 30% reduction per generation.

There is absolutely no reason to think that that level, or anything remotely like it will continue into the future.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now for a more interesting aspect of the question: does it matter if the human race goes extinct?
Lets say the scenario where humans have below replacement level birth rates to extinction takes place. Nobody is being massacred, there is no global suffering, would it be a 'bad' thing?

You are imagining a future scenario where everyone is happy the the species is
going extinct and asking if that's bad...

Probably not from the perspective of those alive at the time, but the scenario is
so unlikely as to be hardly worth considering.
Like asking if it's moral to torture and eat babies in a world where everyone likes
torturing and eating babies and babies enjoy being tortured and eaten.

We have a really really strong instinct for self preservation and the preservation of
the species. And that is not likely to change as there is no sane reason not to
ensure our offspring also have the desire for not only self preservation but also
the desire to preserve their offspring and the species as a whole.

Originally posted by googlefudge


.... everyone likes torturing and eating babies and babies enjoy being tortured and eaten....

.

...err sorry! what!

Originally posted by humy
...err sorry! what!

It's a common enough hypothetical theists come up with when trying to prove
that atheists must be moral relativists, or similar.

The point was that the hypothetical is about a possible situation that has never
and almost certainly will never exist here on Earth. And while it can on occasion
be instructive to consider extreme situations, it's not unreasonable to respond to
some hypotheticals by saying that they are so unlikely to actually occur that its
not really worth while or interesting to discuss them.

In this case the likelihood of a situation where the entire population of biological
humans decides to simply stop reproducing [or indefinitely continue reproducing
at less than replacement levels] till the species goes extinct is so implausible due
to humans evolved built in desire to propogate the species that the answer to the
question as to whether it would be good or bad if we went extinct in that situation
is uninsteresting.


A more interesting question is would it be bad if humanity went extinct because humans [h]
gradually became post-humans [h+]. My answer to which would be [assuming no coorcement
or agression from the h+ to force the h to become h+] that it's a good rather than bad thing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a common enough hypothetical theists come up with when trying to prove
that atheists must be moral relativists, or similar.

The point was that the hypothetical is about a possible situation that has never
and almost certainly will never exist here on Earth. And while it can on occasion
be instructive to consider extreme situations, it's not ...[text shortened]...
or agression from the h+ to force the h to become h+] that it's a good rather than bad thing.

"A more interesting question is would it be bad if humanity went extinct because humans [h]
gradually became post-humans [h+]. My answer to which would be [assuming no coorcement
or agression from the h+ to force the h to become h+] that it's a good rather than bad thing"

Something rather like that may have happened already. We could imagine part of a humanoid species H becoming isolated and by circumstance is in an environment that has challenges which result in their evolving to have evolutionarily superior attributes as H+ When they eventually come into contact with the humanoids H which did not evolve these advantages, they violently wipe out H. (Or it could be the evolution of improved disease resistance which allows H+ to safely carry germs that wipe out the H humanoids unwittingly.)

Given how long we have been here, this has quite probably happened to some species or other.

Originally posted by JS357
"A more interesting question is would it be bad if humanity went extinct because humans [h]
gradually became post-humans [h+]. My answer to which would be [assuming no coorcement
or agression from the h+ to force the h to become h+] that it's a good rather than bad thing"

Something rather like that may have happened already. We could imagine part of a hum ...[text shortened]...

Given how long we have been here, this has quite probably happened to some species or other.

I get your point... But the difference between what evolution can do, and
what technology will [barring interveining disaster] will do is enormous.

A 'post-human' transhumanist could, and likely would, have changes that far far
outstrip anything evolution could ever do. Calling someone h+ means a heck
of a lot more than the difference between homosapians and neadethal [for example].

I just think it's helpfull not to mix up the terminology because the h+ stands for
something much more radical.


However I would hope that in a future [near inevitable] where there exist humans
and post-humans they coexist peacfully and don't try to wipe each other out.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is absolutely no reason to think that that level, or anything remotely like it will continue into the future.

Actually there is very good reason to think that it will. It seems that we all have an inner drive to pass on our genes, but our drive to have lots of children it tied to high child mortality. When child mortality drops, so does our birth rate. This is more than just a passing fad. It seems that as the world gets wealthier and healthier, the birth rate will stay below replacement level unless there are specific policies put in place to encourage higher birth rates above and beyond the natural instincts of parents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is very good reason to think that it will. It seems that we all have an inner drive to pass on our genes, but our drive to have lots of children it tied to high child mortality. When child mortality drops, so does our birth rate. This is more than just a passing fad. It seems that as the world gets wealthier and healthier, the birth rate wi ...[text shortened]... put in place to encourage higher birth rates above and beyond the natural instincts of parents.

The world currently feels overcrowded, and we worry about having enough resources
to go around which is a societal pressure not to have many kids.

This effect would be very very likely reversed if the population significantly dropped.

So no, your scenario is not likely, at all. And the trend will almost certainly not continue
on indefinitely because the pressures will change.