6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI 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.
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?
So, yes, I would say it would be a 'bad' thing to happen even if it doesn't involve suffering.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt would just be the next thing.
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?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's unlikely to 'evolve' in the evolutionary sense as self re-design and
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.
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
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by wolfgang59Not a threat to our existence... quite possibly a threat to our satellites/way of life.
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)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is absolutely no reason to think that that level, or anything remotely like it will continue into the future.
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are imagining a future scenario where everyone is happy the the species is
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?
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIt's a common enough hypothetical theists come up with when trying to prove
...err sorry! what!
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge"A more interesting question is would it be bad if humanity went extinct because humans [h]
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.
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by JS357I get your point... But the difference between what evolution can do, and
"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.
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 googlefudgeActually 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.
There is absolutely no reason to think that that level, or anything remotely like it will continue into the future.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe world currently feels overcrowded, and we worry about having enough resources
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.
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.