3 ms·

I in turn don't understand this sentiment. What are you trying to say? That you don't care about the continued survival of humanity beyond your own demise? You

by dTal 6y ago

I in turn don't understand this sentiment. What are you trying to say? That you don't care about the continued survival of humanity beyond your own demise? You would be perfectly happy for everyone to be wiped out the day after you die?

brewdad 6y ago
I will be dead. I'll have no feelings.
- pixl97 6y ago
  So why not pollute and burn down the biosphere now if you dont care what happens after you're dead?
  - meadsteve 6y ago
    you've seen the current biosphere right? I think they have been.
- dTal 6y ago
  sigh But you have feelings now, and are presumably capable of having feelings about events beyond your immediate experience. If someone offered you 5 bucks, with the caveat that if you take it then the Earth is destroyed the moment you die - you're a terrible person if you take the money. (Incidentally, there's not really any difference between not experiencing something because you're dead, and not experiencing it because your back is turned. Are you fine with atrocities in general, provided you don't find out about them?)
posterboy 6y ago
> You would be perfectly happy for everyone to be wiped out the day after you die? No, you would be nothing the day after you die. It is that simple. The problem was slightly different anyway, that is everyone being wiped out at the same time. Literally no body would care anymore.
zachrose 6y ago
Hmm. Something like, "humanity serves humans, not the other way around." If there are no humans around to enjoy the fruits of humanity, I don't assume that something is lost or wasted. The problem I have with the "eggs in a basket" line of thinking is that it raises extreme moral hazard to say we don't have to care about everyone as long as a few people are saved. Losing a basket of billions of eggs to save a dozen is cold comfort. (Yes, I realize magnetic pole reversal isn't the same as nuclear holocaust, but I still don't feel my scepticism is misplaced.)

by dTal 6y ago

brewdad 6y ago

I will be dead. I'll have no feelings.

pixl97 6y ago
So why not pollute and burn down the biosphere now if you dont care what happens after you're dead?
- meadsteve 6y ago
  you've seen the current biosphere right? I think they have been.
dTal 6y ago
sigh But you have feelings now, and are presumably capable of having feelings about events beyond your immediate experience. If someone offered you 5 bucks, with the caveat that if you take it then the Earth is destroyed the moment you die - you're a terrible person if you take the money. (Incidentally, there's not really any difference between not experiencing something because you're dead, and not experiencing it because your back is turned. Are you fine with atrocities in general, provided you don't find out about them?)

posterboy 6y ago

> You would be perfectly happy for everyone to be wiped out the day after you die? No, you would be nothing the day after you die. It is that simple. The problem was slightly different anyway, that is everyone being wiped out at the same time. Literally no body would care anymore.

zachrose 6y ago

Hmm. Something like, "humanity serves humans, not the other way around." If there are no humans around to enjoy the fruits of humanity, I don't assume that something is lost or wasted. The problem I have with the "eggs in a basket" line of thinking is that it raises extreme moral hazard to say we don't have to care about everyone as long as a few people are saved. Losing a basket of billions of eggs to save a dozen is cold comfort. (Yes, I realize magnetic pole reversal isn't the same as nuclear holocaust, but I still don't feel my scepticism is misplaced.)