-
Here's a button. If you push it, all humans will become infertile. No one will be killed, but no more people will be born and the human species will become extinct in the early 22nd Century.
Do you push the button?
#morality #ethics #climate #COVID19 #corruption #good #evil #peace #war #progress #extinction #humanity
@Pat 63% trying to destroy the planet and counting
OMG, humanity is hanging on by a thread...
Even though this process wouldn't kill anybody it would still be pretty cruel. A lot of people would suffer because they wouldn't be able to have any kids, and people generally like to have kids so there's that.
If there was a way to push a button and have people not want to have kids anymore that would be less cruel but a lot of people would still have anxiety about the species going extinct anyway.
@Pat
> A lot of people would suffer because they wouldn't be able to have any kids, and people generally like to have kids so there's that
I don't follow, if people like something it is cruel to stop them? No questions asked?
Do you understand the implication?
"All laws are cruel by principle, because they stop people from doing something they like."
The actual argument to press the button is that humanity does not manage to stop the climate catastrophe, so not pressing it is cruel because it means letting the expected fallout happen to a maximum number of people.
I was comparing infertility extinction to a sudden mass extinction like a plague or an asteroid or something.
The reason for considering this at all is not just climate change but all the shit that humans do -- war, corruption, oppression -- what we do to each other and do to other animals. Our species is a very harmful species overall.
I'm actually surprised that half the people even considered such a thing. This is an indication that we are really in a bad place now.
It's sad because all we have to do is decide to do something different and we could easily fix it.
@Pat I do not understand what about this would be easy. Humanity, in its entirety, is just as complex as individual humans.
Saying it is easy to do better is like saying a cell in a body can decide to be a nicer person...
I don't see it that way. I don't think we are cogs. Each person is an individual with autonomy and we can decide to be nice to one another if we want to.
@Pat We can, but the question here is "Will humanity make an effort that is qualified to preclude a sharp rise in suffering in the timeframe given?".
This is why i focussed on climate. Corruption, war etc. has always been there and i see no reason to judge that differently right now. But with the looming climate catastrophy, suffering will increase, thus making a different judgement about the button make sense.
It is difficult to form conjectures about timelines that are so long -- up to 100 years.
I don't think we know what will happen for sure. Some animals may do better and some may do worse, but overall I think such a rapid change in environment will make it difficult for most species to adapt or migrate.
I think the human suffering will mostly be due to migration and hunger. I don't know how this compares to historical global catastrophes like the plague or genocides caused by global colonialism. The shear size of today's human population will increase the numbers of individuals who suffer, I think.
I think a lot of the human suffering will be due to scarcity of resources to sustain the human population. So, I think if we started now encouraging people to not bred so much and actively tried to reduce the global population in advance of the catastrophe it would minimize the suffering.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would want to bring a new life into this world under current conditions; to see their own children suffer like that.
@Pat It seems like you alternate between agreeing with the direction i go and then again not.
And encouraging people not to breed so much... you hint at another red flag that rich people are the problem: breeding encouragement!
Earlier i saw a hint that you thought that the button should remove desire for kids also... yes, it should, but that was not the question in the survey.
@Pat I do appreciate the call to discussion here - i quite enjoyed it so far. Would wish for more participants, though.
A play on words... i attempted, but i think you found a better one here than i intended.
What this did might not be start a move to more sustainable practices at large, but it did comfort me, in the way of seeing that i am not alone.
Thank you for that.
@admitsWrongIfProven
>"It seems like you alternate between agreeing with the direction i go and then again not"
Yeah, it's almost like it's 50/50, isn't it.
>"And encouraging people not to breed so much... you hint at another red flag that rich people are the problem: breeding encouragement! "
Is that a play on words? 🙂
>"Earlier i saw a hint that you thought that the button should remove desire for kids also... yes, it should, but that was not the question in the survey."
The poll is more of way to encourage discussion on the topic. I don't know if that change in wording would have changed anybody's response to the poll.
I think a few years ago very few people wouldn't even entertain the idea that we would actually want to end our species.