3 ms·

> A catastrophe that ends human history would destroy the vast future that humanity would otherwise have. And it would be horrific for those who will be alive a

> A catastrophe that ends human history would destroy the vast future that humanity would otherwise have. And it would be horrific for those who will be alive at that time. The people who live then will be just as real as you or me. They will exist, they just don’t exist yet. They will feel the sun on their skin and they will enjoy a swim in the sea. They will have the same hopes, they will feel the same pain. I agree with the idea of preserving opportunity in the future, but the way it is posed in this article is strange. It treats these unborn billions as if they exist right now, and to change the future is to betray them. Focusing so much on the number of unborn people also makes it seem like the author thinks a larger world population is inherently better, morally better. Say the world population instead stabilizes at six billion by the year 2700. That leads to trillions less people being born than in the author's scenario. Is that a lost world? Would the people alive then care?

pmoriarty 5y ago
"Focusing so much on the number of unborn people also makes it seem like the author thinks a larger world population is inherently better, morally better." From a utilitarian perspective, which values the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people would consider more happy people to be a good thing.
stormbrew 5y ago
I think you're reading some moral judgements in that aren't there. We have very little control over the future population of the world, especially over a 1 million year time scale. Nothing in the article says "it would be good for there to have been 100 trillion people in 800 thousand years", it just says there might be. However you tweak the numbers, unless you assume a much more significant depopulation than just the current 8 or so to 6 billion people, it's many trillions of people either way. Even with a massive depopulation, if human life continues until then the number will unquestionably dwarf the current population. So it's posing the simple question: If your actions cause pain for future generations, how many people will it effect? What's an acceptable number of future people to hurt for whatever you're doing now? This is a moral question, a kind of ultra scale trolley problem, not an answer.
kurthr 5y ago
"Every sperm is sacred" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
throwaways85989 5y ago
The many exist not in one huge mass, but in generation after generation- and the author is right to assume there interests more worthy then short-term comforts of the few and those whose who disguise laziness as a ideology or law of nature. What he fails to accurately represent is the structure of the future. Cause this its not accurate to depict it like the past as one line of history, of sequential events and scenarios. The future is the sum of all possible scenarios, and that includes short-term disasters and recoverys. Its a scenario-tree with overlapping forests in the branches. Its a tree, that deforms as one moves on it, gains capability and gathers risks to return to a scenario that is similar in ways to the past. Branches thicken as the fruit of research thicken the likelihoods. And its not explored by one tribe on leader, one people, its explored simultaneously by all of humanity, even the dead branches leading nowhere, not even into the past and diminished trees. On some planet we might one day have a nuclear exchange. With this tree of chances in mind, some recent developments also make more sense- as long as humanity has no behavioral self-control, developing ever more advanced exponential technology and hand it to the individual, reduces the thickness of the probability branches higher up in the future. Exploring one self, social engineering, social implants and protect against disaster by root-hardening (investing in technology that allows for easier, faster recovery) is more important sequentially then having next level tech (like fusion, flying cars and space travel for everyone). I botched this post, but the truth is in it.

pmoriarty 5y ago

"Focusing so much on the number of unborn people also makes it seem like the author thinks a larger world population is inherently better, morally better." From a utilitarian perspective, which values the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people would consider more happy people to be a good thing.

stormbrew 5y ago

I think you're reading some moral judgements in that aren't there. We have very little control over the future population of the world, especially over a 1 million year time scale. Nothing in the article says "it would be good for there to have been 100 trillion people in 800 thousand years", it just says there might be. However you tweak the numbers, unless you assume a much more significant depopulation than just the current 8 or so to 6 billion people, it's many trillions of people either way. Even with a massive depopulation, if human life continues until then the number will unquestionably dwarf the current population. So it's posing the simple question: If your actions cause pain for future generations, how many people will it effect? What's an acceptable number of future people to hurt for whatever you're doing now? This is a moral question, a kind of ultra scale trolley problem, not an answer.

kurthr 5y ago

"Every sperm is sacred" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

throwaways85989 5y ago

The many exist not in one huge mass, but in generation after generation- and the author is right to assume there interests more worthy then short-term comforts of the few and those whose who disguise laziness as a ideology or law of nature. What he fails to accurately represent is the structure of the future. Cause this its not accurate to depict it like the past as one line of history, of sequential events and scenarios. The future is the sum of all possible scenarios, and that includes short-term disasters and recoverys. Its a scenario-tree with overlapping forests in the branches. Its a tree, that deforms as one moves on it, gains capability and gathers risks to return to a scenario that is similar in ways to the past. Branches thicken as the fruit of research thicken the likelihoods. And its not explored by one tribe on leader, one people, its explored simultaneously by all of humanity, even the dead branches leading nowhere, not even into the past and diminished trees. On some planet we might one day have a nuclear exchange. With this tree of chances in mind, some recent developments also make more sense- as long as humanity has no behavioral self-control, developing ever more advanced exponential technology and hand it to the individual, reduces the thickness of the probability branches higher up in the future. Exploring one self, social engineering, social implants and protect against disaster by root-hardening (investing in technology that allows for easier, faster recovery) is more important sequentially then having next level tech (like fusion, flying cars and space travel for everyone). I botched this post, but the truth is in it.