5 ms·

Humanity has suffered for millions of years. Just recently we have been able to live peacefully, but most of the population does not live in Japan or the Nether

Humanity has suffered for millions of years. Just recently we have been able to live peacefully, but most of the population does not live in Japan or the Netherlands. And even then just 70 years ago these places went through a World War. We have a long way to go until everyone on the planet can grow up in conditions where you turn out 'default good/well-meaning towards others'.

Bakary 4y ago
Kinda makes you wonder about the ethical aspect of deciding to give birth
- dylan604 4y ago
  Or the ethical aspect of forcing people to give birth
  - Bakary 4y ago
    What bothers me is that many basic ethical principles fall by the wayside when the topic shifts to our own children. The reason for that is obvious: we are the descendants of organisms that valued reproduction. It's nonetheless an interesting discussion to have. Is it ethical to create a sentient AI that might suffer? -> we already make similar decisions millions of times per day Don't treat humans as means to an end, instead treat them as ends -> we create other humans to satisfy our current needs in a world characterized by struggle And of course as you have pointed out, some groups consider that it's better by default for a child to exist in adverse starting conditions (whilst also negatively impacting other people) than to not exist
    - wussboy 4y ago
      The people who decide bringing new life into this world is unethical will quickly be replaced those who think it _is_ ethical. I understand your reasoning, but "don't have kids" can never be the answer.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        From what perspective are you using the word "quickly" here? From human scales, quickly isn't true as China has been limiting to 1 kid for how long? From cosmological scales, humans barely even existed.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        It might never become popular but every individual aware of the argument can then choose to reproduce or not (assuming they aren't barred from it for other reasons). In other words, we can't really hide behind the survival of the species as a whole when we consider our own actions and their ramifications. We know the great mass of humans will carry on as before and there's little we can do to change that, but we are also aware that we have this responsibility that we can act on in our own life. Every person in the position to reproduce has a choice laid out before them. For the majority of us, it's the single most impactful ethical decision we will ever make.
  - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
    Yes apparently God has given us free will but according to religious people we can't choose to not reproduce.
cmckn 4y ago
Anatomically modern humans have only been around for ~300,000 years. Behaviorally modern humans, more like 150,000 years (or as recently as 60,000 years, depends who you ask). We are really a very young specie.
- jrvarela56 4y ago
  We're monkeys living in groups, looking for food and shelter. The same struggle has been going on since before we consider 'ourselves' Homo sapiens.
z9znz 4y ago
I don't believe that humanity has suffered for millions of years. From what I've read, life before agriculture was decent. The trouble really seemed to begin with agriculture, land, and people ownership. Population explosion also began with agriculture, since more offspring meant more people to work your lands. Hunter-gatherers breastfed longer (so more years between ability to become pregnant again). Plus they were relatively mobile, so more having more children was not a practical goal. Many of the diseases and other problems we have now are related to population increases in small areas (bad sanitation, etc.).
- jrvarela56 4y ago
  If life before agriculture was good, what prompted the transition?
  - carapace 4y ago
    Personally, I suspect it was the Younger Dryas: > The Younger Dryas (c. 12,900 to 11,700 years BP[2]) was a return to glacial conditions which temporarily reversed the gradual climatic warming after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, c. 27,000 to 20,000 years BP). The Younger Dryas was the last stage of the Pleistocene epoch (c. 2,580,000 to 11,700 years BP) and it preceded the current, warmer Holocene epoch. The Younger Dryas was the most severe and long lasting of several interruptions to the warming of the Earth's climate... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas Everything was good for a couple of million years, and then everything got really really bad for over a thousand years. What we think of as human history is the story of our recovery from the trauma of the YD?
- floor2 4y ago
  Then you've read some terribly misleading, romanticized false version of history. Hunter-gatherer lives should not be romanticized as being desirable. They were (and are, in the few places they still exist) incredibly hard, dangerous and miserable existences. Think of it as the most extreme form of poverty. No clean water, no shoes, malnutrition, limited protection against the weather. Every day going about basic tasks carries the risk for death, disease and disablement. There is a reason that human population didn't rapidly increase until relatively recently in our collective hundred-thousand-year history. It's because most humans died before reaching reproductive age. Even in the few pockets of the globe with conditions favorable to survival, periodic events (weather, disease, rival groups, over-hunting, etc) wiped out entire tribes in terrible ways.

Bakary 4y ago

Kinda makes you wonder about the ethical aspect of deciding to give birth

dylan604 4y ago
Or the ethical aspect of forcing people to give birth
- Bakary 4y ago
  What bothers me is that many basic ethical principles fall by the wayside when the topic shifts to our own children. The reason for that is obvious: we are the descendants of organisms that valued reproduction. It's nonetheless an interesting discussion to have. Is it ethical to create a sentient AI that might suffer? -> we already make similar decisions millions of times per day Don't treat humans as means to an end, instead treat them as ends -> we create other humans to satisfy our current needs in a world characterized by struggle And of course as you have pointed out, some groups consider that it's better by default for a child to exist in adverse starting conditions (whilst also negatively impacting other people) than to not exist
  - wussboy 4y ago
    The people who decide bringing new life into this world is unethical will quickly be replaced those who think it _is_ ethical. I understand your reasoning, but "don't have kids" can never be the answer.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      From what perspective are you using the word "quickly" here? From human scales, quickly isn't true as China has been limiting to 1 kid for how long? From cosmological scales, humans barely even existed.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      It might never become popular but every individual aware of the argument can then choose to reproduce or not (assuming they aren't barred from it for other reasons). In other words, we can't really hide behind the survival of the species as a whole when we consider our own actions and their ramifications. We know the great mass of humans will carry on as before and there's little we can do to change that, but we are also aware that we have this responsibility that we can act on in our own life. Every person in the position to reproduce has a choice laid out before them. For the majority of us, it's the single most impactful ethical decision we will ever make.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  Yes apparently God has given us free will but according to religious people we can't choose to not reproduce.

cmckn 4y ago

Anatomically modern humans have only been around for ~300,000 years. Behaviorally modern humans, more like 150,000 years (or as recently as 60,000 years, depends who you ask). We are really a very young specie.

jrvarela56 4y ago
We're monkeys living in groups, looking for food and shelter. The same struggle has been going on since before we consider 'ourselves' Homo sapiens.

z9znz 4y ago

I don't believe that humanity has suffered for millions of years. From what I've read, life before agriculture was decent. The trouble really seemed to begin with agriculture, land, and people ownership. Population explosion also began with agriculture, since more offspring meant more people to work your lands. Hunter-gatherers breastfed longer (so more years between ability to become pregnant again). Plus they were relatively mobile, so more having more children was not a practical goal. Many of the diseases and other problems we have now are related to population increases in small areas (bad sanitation, etc.).

jrvarela56 4y ago
If life before agriculture was good, what prompted the transition?
- carapace 4y ago
  Personally, I suspect it was the Younger Dryas: > The Younger Dryas (c. 12,900 to 11,700 years BP[2]) was a return to glacial conditions which temporarily reversed the gradual climatic warming after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, c. 27,000 to 20,000 years BP). The Younger Dryas was the last stage of the Pleistocene epoch (c. 2,580,000 to 11,700 years BP) and it preceded the current, warmer Holocene epoch. The Younger Dryas was the most severe and long lasting of several interruptions to the warming of the Earth's climate... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas Everything was good for a couple of million years, and then everything got really really bad for over a thousand years. What we think of as human history is the story of our recovery from the trauma of the YD?
floor2 4y ago
Then you've read some terribly misleading, romanticized false version of history. Hunter-gatherer lives should not be romanticized as being desirable. They were (and are, in the few places they still exist) incredibly hard, dangerous and miserable existences. Think of it as the most extreme form of poverty. No clean water, no shoes, malnutrition, limited protection against the weather. Every day going about basic tasks carries the risk for death, disease and disablement. There is a reason that human population didn't rapidly increase until relatively recently in our collective hundred-thousand-year history. It's because most humans died before reaching reproductive age. Even in the few pockets of the globe with conditions favorable to survival, periodic events (weather, disease, rival groups, over-hunting, etc) wiped out entire tribes in terrible ways.