Should The Human Species Pursue Its Own Extinction

when we invest in weapons, yeah, we are pursuing the extinction of our own species. nuclear holocaust, some people feel, (and felt) is inevitable. when that happens GG us.

yep, but he didn't talk about this i don't think.

Humanity is advancing very rapidly and population growth is tapering off. We have no way of knowing what the future holds, and quality of life has been increasing steadily. Assuming that pain not will lessen or be overcome entirely with time is quite foolish. This guys arguments seem to be based on a very near sighted and illogical view of the future. Modern civilization has only existed for a small sliver of time, complex life for over 600 million years. Can you picture humanity in 100 years? 1000 years? how about 100,000?

The world is currently pretty fucked up, perhaps we will kill each other off on some epic scale. But if we don't the future will be pretty interesting, too bad we won't be around to see most of it.

I get the whole asymmetry point, but do you really believe there is intrinsic value in pleasure (or negative intrinsic value for pain )? Do you agree with the hedonists and utilitarianists on what is important in life? I'm saying this because this seems to be the basis for the conclusions of Benatar as I saw them in the video.

"The discipline of suffering, of great suffering — do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness — was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?"

^this doesn't mean being miserable has intrinsic value as well obviously

may watch video later, but in answer to the question presented in blog title: no
sry this sounds like a douchy reply lol, just feel the 'answer' is 'obvious' and has to be posted in that way, but ofc i need to consider when i get the time why it could possibly be a 'yes' by watching vid

On October 23 2012 05:46 lebowski wrote: I get the whole asymmetry point, but do you really believe there is intrinsic value in pleasure (or negative intrinsic value for pain )? Do you agree with the hedonists and utilitarianists on what is important in life? I'm saying this because this seems to be the basis for the conclusions of Benatar as I saw them in the video. "The discipline of suffering, of great suffering — do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness — was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?" ^this doesn't mean being miserable has intrinsic value as well obviously

I will answer Nietzsche with Ivan Karamazov's "what of the children"? It is not a discipline for helpless children and animals to suffer and die. We can glorify suffering all we want and see it for the great teacher that it is, and make it something to overcome for ourselves if we have willpower, but we can't expect children and animals to do the same. Their suffering simply is, and it is unresolvable.

On October 23 2012 07:08 Ket wrote: may watch video later, but in answer to the question presented in blog title: no sry this sounds like a douchy reply lol, just feel the 'answer' is 'obvious' and has to be posted in that way, but ofc i need to consider when i get the time why it could possibly be a 'yes' by watching vid

Actually, I just picked the name of the video for my blog title before having watched the whole thing. I don't know why they chose that title, because it's not the topic of the video and not being argued by the philosopher the person is discussing.

I think the technological singularity is coming so it's not really possible to predict what the next 100 years will be like or how humanity's effect on the Earth will change.

On October 24 2012 11:11 nolan wrote: I think the technological singularity is coming so it's not really possible to predict what the next 100 years will be like or how humanity's effect on the Earth will change.

Change does not equate progress. The transhumanists are no different than the previous utopia-theorists. The idea that technology makes lives better is a fallacy, in my view. Not entirely, but for the most part. It just makes lives longer, and less painful in the immediate. The impact of this progress on the Earth and the creatures is pretty horrific, too. Whatever is achieved by technological progress has a drawback, and the further it progresses the more dangerous it becomes as well. It is indeed impossible to predict, but there are many scenarios in which, even if the so-called singularity happens, it won't be good news for us. Anyway, for now, the singularity is science-fiction, it shouldn't be something someone bases his life on.

Wouldn't evolution count as extinction?

Interesting chapter about predicting the future in Khaneman's book. He says it's a load of bull, and none of them are even remotely close to predicting everything. Everything is done in hindsight, "I knew", or they take a few things they were close to out of thousands of things.

Also a book where some guy finds all kinds of people who specialize in predicting the future, interviews hundreds of them, tests, so forth. Everyone way off with everything. Impossible to predict anything with certainty. Pretty cool stuff. Oh, and the author repeatedly calls people who like to predict things frauds and charlatan's.

Ok, that's all I have lol

Sounds about right Marius

Gnarly, not sure what you mean.

Oh, I think I get what you're saying. I was just reading Lautréamont:

“If the face of the earth were covered with lice as the sea-shore is covered with grains of sand, the human race would be destroyed, a prey to dreadful pain. What a sight! With me, motionless on my angel wings, in the air to contemplate it!”

There's an evolutionary point of view there .The new race of predators (lice) replaces the human being.

Interesting video. Pretty much impossible to predict the future, and that seems like one of the big factors in why we would want to pursue our own extinction.



he talks about their being a bias, humans are programmed to be optimistic and self delusional. That seems like an argument for not pursuing our own extinction to me, as it tips of the scale of humans feeling more pleasure from a bias pf optimism and therefore should keep existing, as they feel more optimism than pessimism. Not true for all human beings of course, but if you want to make a decision for all of humanity, to keep on living seems like the mathematically correct choice to me.

In a sense, that's in line with what I'm talking about, but not.

People like to say that we evolved from monkeys, but monkey isn't a specific type of animal. It's a group. Like us and the neanderthals, there was a specie that we both evolved from. While the differences may not be noticed day-to-day, looking at a snapshot through millions of years will reveal that once enough time has passed, one specie will either evolve into a different creature(s) from the first shot, or end up extinct.

If we evolve, ie: grow larger brains and get smarter, or grow an extra sense, we are no longer human. We'll be a new classification of specie. (Is that even right to say, specie?)