4 ms·

I don’t see how this is a rational response to the question that the commenter posited. It’s all assumptions on top of assumptions about his/her personhood. Wh

I don’t see how this is a rational response to the question that the commenter posited. It’s all assumptions on top of assumptions about his/her personhood. What do you mean by “preservation” here—is it just attending to our most basic physiological needs? Is doing that really even an active choice? What about the things that we do for our loved ones—is that on the same scale as trying to preserve our species from mass extinction? What if the commenter contributes to charity or puts out excellent work which improves people’s lives—does that not count as caring for the lives of one’s fellow man?

BobbyJo 5y ago
> What do you mean by “preservation” here Preserve, as in, to maintain. Like, not let it disappear. That should be obvious from the context, so I have a hard time believing this was a good faith attempt at poking holes in what I said. > Is doing that really even an active choice? Mostly no, but only because choosing not to preserve your own life is such a startlingly rare occurrence we don't really think of it as an option. How is chosing to preserve humanity as a whole not a similar 'non-choice' in that case? > What about the things that we do for our loved ones—is that on the same scale as trying to preserve our species from mass extinction? It doesn't need to be on the same scale to be driven by the same factors. > What if the commenter contributes to charity or puts out excellent work which improves people’s lives—does that not count as caring for the lives of one’s fellow man? It certainly would, and would make the cognitive dissonance of thinking humanity is itself not worth preserving pretty stark. > I don’t see how this is a rational response to the question that the commenter posited. I am likewise confused how you thought any of this was a rational rebuttal to my own statements.

BobbyJo 5y ago

> What do you mean by “preservation” here Preserve, as in, to maintain. Like, not let it disappear. That should be obvious from the context, so I have a hard time believing this was a good faith attempt at poking holes in what I said. > Is doing that really even an active choice? Mostly no, but only because choosing not to preserve your own life is such a startlingly rare occurrence we don't really think of it as an option. How is chosing to preserve humanity as a whole not a similar 'non-choice' in that case? > What about the things that we do for our loved ones—is that on the same scale as trying to preserve our species from mass extinction? It doesn't need to be on the same scale to be driven by the same factors. > What if the commenter contributes to charity or puts out excellent work which improves people’s lives—does that not count as caring for the lives of one’s fellow man? It certainly would, and would make the cognitive dissonance of thinking humanity is itself not worth preserving pretty stark. > I don’t see how this is a rational response to the question that the commenter posited. I am likewise confused how you thought any of this was a rational rebuttal to my own statements.