3 ms·

What's the point of automating everything if there are no more people? I think ultimately people are the source of happiness for people. Material things are j

by yters 7y ago

What's the point of automating everything if there are no more people? I think ultimately people are the source of happiness for people. Material things are just an intermediary in the happiness exchange. So, if we get rid of people to replace them with material things we will become less happy. Plus, it isn't obvious that all the important stuff can be automated.

Zanni 7y ago
I find my joy in people is inversely related to their quantity. If I'm hiking a sparsely populated trail, then anyone I meet is worth a conversation. If I'm on a crowded subway, I do my best to shut everyone out. At a minimum, I think joy is conserved. But I suspect it would actually increase if there were fewer people (up to a point).
- yters 7y ago
  As counter anecdata, my perception is people who come from large families and populous regions that are neighborly are much happier and friendlier than those who keep to themselves or ignore those around them.
tapland 7y ago
> So, if we get rid of people to replace them with material things we will become less happy. No. People who don't exist don't experience anything. And there are plenty of people who are born and who as adults wish they had never been, and a lot of us who are still ok with it but not very excited are still biased since we do exist. This is not a problem for those who are never born. They don't become people who can feel pain and suffering. There are plenty of people. I really doubt that an increase in people is in itself a reason for increased happiness. Noone is arguing for exterminating parts of the not needed population because of automation.
- yters 7y ago
  What if the value of someone's life is independent of their own subjective perception of their own value? Many people, tragically, view themselves as valueless, due to many factors, but that's a reason to boost their self value, not a reason to give into their misperception of self. If a person's body is unhealthy, we don't encourage them towards greater unhealthiness, but rather health. The same with mental health. We should encourage mentally healthy perspectives, which includes self value.

by yters 7y ago

Zanni 7y ago

I find my joy in people is inversely related to their quantity. If I'm hiking a sparsely populated trail, then anyone I meet is worth a conversation. If I'm on a crowded subway, I do my best to shut everyone out. At a minimum, I think joy is conserved. But I suspect it would actually increase if there were fewer people (up to a point).

yters 7y ago
As counter anecdata, my perception is people who come from large families and populous regions that are neighborly are much happier and friendlier than those who keep to themselves or ignore those around them.

tapland 7y ago

> So, if we get rid of people to replace them with material things we will become less happy. No. People who don't exist don't experience anything. And there are plenty of people who are born and who as adults wish they had never been, and a lot of us who are still ok with it but not very excited are still biased since we do exist. This is not a problem for those who are never born. They don't become people who can feel pain and suffering. There are plenty of people. I really doubt that an increase in people is in itself a reason for increased happiness. Noone is arguing for exterminating parts of the not needed population because of automation.

yters 7y ago
What if the value of someone's life is independent of their own subjective perception of their own value? Many people, tragically, view themselves as valueless, due to many factors, but that's a reason to boost their self value, not a reason to give into their misperception of self. If a person's body is unhealthy, we don't encourage them towards greater unhealthiness, but rather health. The same with mental health. We should encourage mentally healthy perspectives, which includes self value.