3 ms·

Why is it so important to spread humanity far and wide? And why would it be bad if humans went extinct sometime in the distant future?

hollerith 9y ago
Well, a person can care about dozens of separate things. It does not take much of a commitment to a thing to have conversations with others interested in the thing or to write about it on the internet. (And over the years, a small commitment to something can grow.) If you meant to ask, "why should I care . . .," then I hope you will excuse me if I leave that one unanswered.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  I suppose I'm asking why should we, in general sense, should care; i.e what is the philosophical argument. I agree human suffering is bad but if we are all to die "instantly" (relative to out overall time in existence as a species) I'm not sure I see the argument for why that would be bad. The other argument I suppose is that the universe itself would somehow suffer if we were not in it, but again I'm not sure I fully understand the rationale.
  - hollerith 9y ago
    Maybe this is a little glib, but I've learned to pay less attention to arguments as to why a person should value X or Y and to pay more attention to any information that would help me predict (and when I am feeling bold, to influence) what people (and what groups of people working towards a common goal) actually value, i.e., to what "ultimate" ends are they actually willing to invest sustained effort and to sacrifice. (The purpose of the word "ultimate" in that last sentence is to distinguish between ends or goals that almost everyone has to work towards (which some call "instrumental" goals) and ends that do not have that property (ultimate or "terminal" goals). For example, at least in the U.S., almost everyone has to put in sustained effort to produce an income and if they fail at that goal then they will struggle to achieve any goal (good or evil). Consequently, in the terminology I've just introduced, ensuring an adequate income would at least where I live constitute an instrumental rather than an ultimate goal. It is people's ultimate goals that I am the most interested learning about. An internet manifesto with 10,000 signatures tends to matter less -- tends to have less of an effect on reality -- IMHO than a few relatively rational people willing to put in a few hours of effort every month towards an ultimate goal (or some collection of values that includes an ultimate value) as long as they can keep up the effort for long enough. By "effort" I mean effort sufficient to keep a job that many other people want (doled out at a rate of a few hours a month on average). Also, people underestimate the importance of what (evil) things you (or I) are not willing to do and overestimate the importance of what good outcomes (e.g., curing cancer or ending world hunger) a person or group is aiming to achieve. In other words, I believe that if the only thing you (or I) accomplish in the world is never doing any harm to any person -- never to steal anything that according to the generally-believed ethical standards of your society rightfully belongs to them, never to lie to them (particular for personal gain) -- then you (or I) will have done more net good than the vast majority of currently living human beings. Since I started believing those last 2 paragraphs in 1992, however, I've met very few (but not 0 or 1) effective people who agree with them, so I will backtrack somewhat to the position that it is at least worth studying whether what I just asserted is as an important human cognitive bias.
Anonymous107747 9y ago
I won't attempt to convince you with philosophical arguments, as there are none. Whatever philosophical argument I might make, someone will just counter with nihilism. The only argument is biological. It's the same reason nihilists continue to live. Survival is an essential trait of all species. Ultimately it can be argued that all of our advances had that purpose in mind. Spreading humanity far and wide helps to satisfy our need for survival. You might argue that it doesn't affect you, as by the time we colonize other systems you will be long dead. But when you produce offspring, you care less about your own survival than the survival of your offspring. That is to say, your need for survival is transferred to your offspring. As long as they survive, you survive in the form of the genetic material you pass on and the knowledge you have endowed upon them. Presently, the greatest danger to humanity is self-annihilation. Making the transition to an interstellar species is imperative in order to eliminate this danger.

hollerith 9y ago

Well, a person can care about dozens of separate things. It does not take much of a commitment to a thing to have conversations with others interested in the thing or to write about it on the internet. (And over the years, a small commitment to something can grow.) If you meant to ask, "why should I care . . .," then I hope you will excuse me if I leave that one unanswered.

gehwartzen 9y ago
I suppose I'm asking why should we, in general sense, should care; i.e what is the philosophical argument. I agree human suffering is bad but if we are all to die "instantly" (relative to out overall time in existence as a species) I'm not sure I see the argument for why that would be bad. The other argument I suppose is that the universe itself would somehow suffer if we were not in it, but again I'm not sure I fully understand the rationale.
- hollerith 9y ago
  Maybe this is a little glib, but I've learned to pay less attention to arguments as to why a person should value X or Y and to pay more attention to any information that would help me predict (and when I am feeling bold, to influence) what people (and what groups of people working towards a common goal) actually value, i.e., to what "ultimate" ends are they actually willing to invest sustained effort and to sacrifice. (The purpose of the word "ultimate" in that last sentence is to distinguish between ends or goals that almost everyone has to work towards (which some call "instrumental" goals) and ends that do not have that property (ultimate or "terminal" goals). For example, at least in the U.S., almost everyone has to put in sustained effort to produce an income and if they fail at that goal then they will struggle to achieve any goal (good or evil). Consequently, in the terminology I've just introduced, ensuring an adequate income would at least where I live constitute an instrumental rather than an ultimate goal. It is people's ultimate goals that I am the most interested learning about. An internet manifesto with 10,000 signatures tends to matter less -- tends to have less of an effect on reality -- IMHO than a few relatively rational people willing to put in a few hours of effort every month towards an ultimate goal (or some collection of values that includes an ultimate value) as long as they can keep up the effort for long enough. By "effort" I mean effort sufficient to keep a job that many other people want (doled out at a rate of a few hours a month on average). Also, people underestimate the importance of what (evil) things you (or I) are not willing to do and overestimate the importance of what good outcomes (e.g., curing cancer or ending world hunger) a person or group is aiming to achieve. In other words, I believe that if the only thing you (or I) accomplish in the world is never doing any harm to any person -- never to steal anything that according to the generally-believed ethical standards of your society rightfully belongs to them, never to lie to them (particular for personal gain) -- then you (or I) will have done more net good than the vast majority of currently living human beings. Since I started believing those last 2 paragraphs in 1992, however, I've met very few (but not 0 or 1) effective people who agree with them, so I will backtrack somewhat to the position that it is at least worth studying whether what I just asserted is as an important human cognitive bias.

Anonymous107747 9y ago

I won't attempt to convince you with philosophical arguments, as there are none. Whatever philosophical argument I might make, someone will just counter with nihilism. The only argument is biological. It's the same reason nihilists continue to live. Survival is an essential trait of all species. Ultimately it can be argued that all of our advances had that purpose in mind. Spreading humanity far and wide helps to satisfy our need for survival. You might argue that it doesn't affect you, as by the time we colonize other systems you will be long dead. But when you produce offspring, you care less about your own survival than the survival of your offspring. That is to say, your need for survival is transferred to your offspring. As long as they survive, you survive in the form of the genetic material you pass on and the knowledge you have endowed upon them. Presently, the greatest danger to humanity is self-annihilation. Making the transition to an interstellar species is imperative in order to eliminate this danger.