Oddbean new post about login | logout If it was definitive that we are the most advanced species in the universe, would you feel a greater responsibility in ensuring our collective survival?
When I study great artists or musicians, that already makes me feel this way!
how is it definitive inside this scenario
as in, inside your hypothetical, what is making it achieve the state of definitive? definitive to whom? the process was what to ensure definitive? definitive with what degree of confidence & whose degree?
scientifically speaking & respectfully meant, a scientist using the scientific method would never have a resting assumption that something, especially a presumption like that, could be made
the equivalent of a child finding a single egg during a local town's easter egg hunt & declaring all the eggs found when there are other children picking up eggs as we speak & the town would never host an easter egg hunt to hide only a single one in the grass for one child 😭
conclusion: very odd hypothetical, not composed by a scientist, or, respectfully meant, a logical person, cos the logic does not follow
First I'd laugh.
It depends on what you mean by collective survival and what it is you think I should be responsible for. I'm responsible for my own survival. I may contribute things that help others survive (like my work in emergency medicine, for example), but I don't owe anyone my time in this position. It isn't my responsibility to keep doing it. It is my responsibility to not violate the rights of others to survive, but I'm not ultimately responsible for them. Again, this depends on what you mean. It's a broad question.
Would you work more diligently in areas that help the species survive? That means probably not just ensuring your own survival - though that probably helps if you have kids.
No, because I try to live the best life I can for myself already. To do that, I must pursue my own rational self-interest. It just happens that pursuing my own rational self-interest also benefits others. I think that's true in most cases. Otherwise, what you're doing is self-sacrifice and I think that's evil. My purpose is not to make sure that future humans survive. My purpose is to live my one life to the fullest to the extent I can. There is no moral duty beyond that (of course, having children would impose a moral duty, but that is a separate issue and a reason people should choose only after deep reflection). It happens that I value humans greatly and already want them to thrive, regardless of whether or not something more intelligent exists. So to answer, I already am. Humanity itself is already enough for me. I wouldn't forsake it just because something else exists. Read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. She makes a lot of good points on this topic.
Let’s get Bryan Johnson on Nostr Lmao
Who?
Search YouTube. The dude pretty interesting. He tries to not die and he thinks by solving the biological system problem of an individual, the systematic problems of society and earth can be solved as well.
Does it matter whether or not we are the most advanced species?
Shouldn't we always do what is best for ourselves and for the community to which we belong? Isn't that what makes us more human?
As it stands, until we have proof that there's life elsewhere, I feel we have an obligation, if we are capable, of spreading life further afield. The moment we have definitive proof of life elsewhere, not our problem. Our personal survival as a species is less important than life itself.
No. IDGAF about the rest of the universe. I'm here. I'll do what's right for me and mine.
People can make analogies of this to races in old history and the views (whether true or not) they had against one another. I would want to dominate or necessarily ensure mine over another in that case. Likewise, extrapolating that to the species (all humans) against aliens, I don't see why it should be different.
i personally think it's highly unlikely aliens get off their planet without solving the psychopath problem, and when they do, they certainly aren't going to let this mind virus come to their colonies who else but megalomaniacs would want to trick millions of people into murdering each other?
*I would not want to dominate over. Typo
Psychopath problem?
how many people in the population can spot a psychopath, and how many can pressure everyone to pretend they aren't? "give him the benefit of the doubt" etc etc etc a story as old as the oldest books in the bible refer to (i mean garden of eden)
Aah
No! Just do what you do best, and that’s all. 🐶🐾🫡
Pursuing your's and your family's best interest (selfishness), within a framework of strong protections for negative rights, is the most effective way to improve the "collective" interest. I would continue advocating for the minimization and eventual abolition of the state. It's our most destructive institution. If the goal is to preserve the species and expand, it's gotta go. Continued development of Bitcoin backed eCash (and L2+ more generally) would also be super crucial if we're going to become multi-planitary...
We know how the story end
I think there are greater reasons why we should care about our collective survival.. So no, but not because I don't care about the human race.
I think as a species we inherently like to cooperate to strive for amazing things. I would like to think the majority of us would at least somewhat feel responsible for our survival. We tend to develop large institutions to coordinate and help accomplish this. The problem is corruption seems to distort a lot of these good intentions and people lose trust.
I don't think it would matter if we were the most advanced or not. Our number one priority should always be ensuring our survival. Otherwise, what's the point?