4 ms·

Personally I think the answer is anti-natalism. Once life gets more intelligent it takes a relatively short time (compared to the age of the universe) to get to

by Aaargh20318 8y ago

Personally I think the answer is anti-natalism. Once life gets more intelligent it takes a relatively short time (compared to the age of the universe) to get to the point where they realise it's unethical to create new life and choose to go extinct. As a result, intelligent life around the universe only exists as short 'blips', being around for too short a time to ever meet other species.

maaark 8y ago
>it's unethical to create new life and choose to go extinct. I don't get this. What use are ethics when everyones dead and gone?
pavlov 8y ago
The default for unintelligent life is to survive at all cost and fill every niche. You're suggesting that intelligence flips that purpose so that every sentient species eventually becomes depressed suicidal existentialists?
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  All at the same time, united in a single goal... Seeing the wide spectrum of intelligence and education that humans manage it's hard for me to believe we'll ever reach a point of uniformity as a species were something like self-imposed extinction would be plausible.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  Not depressed or suicidal, just realising they have no right to gamble with another human being's life.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    An honestly held belief that their child would have a miserable, depressed, ill life I could understand - especially because those traits can be heritable. I can also understand sour grapes. However the other arguments seem very ill-motivated.
    - Aaargh20318 8y ago
      > An honestly held belief that their child would have a miserable, depressed, ill life I could understand There's always a risk of that, unless you can 100% guarantee this won't happen you're basically gambling with another person's life. I don't think you have the right to do that.
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  I'd put it even stronger, especially in this context where we contemplate radically simpler origins of life, that mightn't be "alive" by standard definitions (like viruses), and yet are steps along the way to sufficient complexity to be "alive": that life (in this context) is reproduction.
throwaway7312 8y ago
It sounds more like anti-natalism is your personal philosophy, and you make the same assumption the holders of most philosophical, ideological, and religious positions make: sooner or later, everyone else will realize to be true what I realize is true. The history of man suggests otherwise. The more our civilization progresses, and the more the population swells, the broader the array of philosophical positions those within the civilization tend to hold. We have no evidence for everyone eventually coalescing around one 'right' belief set. History is also littered with non-reproductive sects, like the Essenes, aesthetics, or, today's answer to these, anti-natalists and child-free individuals. These groups don't tend to be very good at passing their belief systems on to new generations however, as one might expect, and they don't tend to last particularly long once they've emerged on the civilization scene.
- nickwalton00 8y ago
  Very true. It's very hard for people who don't make children to not just get replaced with people with different beliefs.

maaark 8y ago

>it's unethical to create new life and choose to go extinct. I don't get this. What use are ethics when everyones dead and gone?

pavlov 8y ago

The default for unintelligent life is to survive at all cost and fill every niche. You're suggesting that intelligence flips that purpose so that every sentient species eventually becomes depressed suicidal existentialists?

Brockenstein 8y ago
All at the same time, united in a single goal... Seeing the wide spectrum of intelligence and education that humans manage it's hard for me to believe we'll ever reach a point of uniformity as a species were something like self-imposed extinction would be plausible.
Aaargh20318 8y ago
Not depressed or suicidal, just realising they have no right to gamble with another human being's life.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  An honestly held belief that their child would have a miserable, depressed, ill life I could understand - especially because those traits can be heritable. I can also understand sour grapes. However the other arguments seem very ill-motivated.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    > An honestly held belief that their child would have a miserable, depressed, ill life I could understand There's always a risk of that, unless you can 100% guarantee this won't happen you're basically gambling with another person's life. I don't think you have the right to do that.
hyperpallium 8y ago
I'd put it even stronger, especially in this context where we contemplate radically simpler origins of life, that mightn't be "alive" by standard definitions (like viruses), and yet are steps along the way to sufficient complexity to be "alive": that life (in this context) is reproduction.

throwaway7312 8y ago

It sounds more like anti-natalism is your personal philosophy, and you make the same assumption the holders of most philosophical, ideological, and religious positions make: sooner or later, everyone else will realize to be true what I realize is true. The history of man suggests otherwise. The more our civilization progresses, and the more the population swells, the broader the array of philosophical positions those within the civilization tend to hold. We have no evidence for everyone eventually coalescing around one 'right' belief set. History is also littered with non-reproductive sects, like the Essenes, aesthetics, or, today's answer to these, anti-natalists and child-free individuals. These groups don't tend to be very good at passing their belief systems on to new generations however, as one might expect, and they don't tend to last particularly long once they've emerged on the civilization scene.

nickwalton00 8y ago
Very true. It's very hard for people who don't make children to not just get replaced with people with different beliefs.