Suppose there was some kind of technological breakthrough that would improve the Earth in every imaginable way for every living human for the next 600 years. But it resulted in the Earth's demise in year 601. Why should atheists be opposed to it? (Assume there is no chance for space colonization and that life expectancy has no chance of surpassing 150 years.)

After several replies I am now adding in that everyone becomes sterile after 500 years or so. I was not trying to compare present suffering to future suffering (aside from being childless). Only future non existence.

Because there is a big difference between humans that might come and the humans that will come.

It is the same difference that applies between humans that might live in A and the humans that actually live in A. Which is a major reason I don't support carpet bombing, even if I don't know the people that will be killed collaterally.

Why does that matter?

Because it means a "yes" in this case will:
Hypothetically condemn billions of actual people to their death

Which many confuse with:
Condemn billions of hypothetical people to their death.


The difference is fairly gargantuan, if you ask me.

Just don't like the idea of the earth being destroyed in 601 years. And wish to avoid the feeling of guilt I would have if I were to support the idea, and it was actioned. I am happy enough at the moment, besides differentials are often as or more important than absolutes.

And I think it perfectly possible that the life expectancy of babies born this year could approach 500 years.

I love church people. Just because I know there is no such thing as god doesn't mean I don't have morals. That's so funny - you just think I'm only worried about me in the here & now? So typical. The best part - you are probably republican too and don't get why democrats want to help the poor (food stamps, obamacare, welfare, social security) or why we care about a green earth - yet "god" has given it you to tend!

All of that aside, I'm guessing you think it's fraqing that is a good thing. But since I get it that the earth is more than 5000 years old - 600 years is nothing. I want to see what real evolution can do and the earth needs to be around a little longer than that! And yes - I will never "see" it, but that's not the point. The point is the idea lives on. Unlike Jesus.

Why limit the opposition to atheists?

Assuming a significant portion of the "every living human" population is not wiped out to achieve this technological breakthrough then it's a no brainer. Zero opposition.

You did say "every imaginable way" and time travel eliminates the 601 year alarm clock.

Your hypothetical is impossible to achieve and therefore uninteresting to imagine.

DS whenever I read your thoughts on a full stomach, I feel like throwing up. I think thats a compliment. Have you been practicing for hell fire- I will tie all this into relevance regarding the op soon

To avoid muddying the water add in that in 500 years everyone becomes sterile.

This isn't about morals. This is about helping the living at the cost of not letting humankind continue past 600 years. Future suffering was not meant to be part of my hypothetical. Only future non existence.

what do people say to making it 1 month instead of 600 Yrs?

I'm an atheist and yet I constantly think about and try to act in ways that are beneficial to future generations. My resistance to religion, for example, is based on the hope that one day we will no longer need it and I can contribute to that end, even if I'm not around to see it happen. That I might not, probably won't, be around doesn't prevent me opposing it. I think I'm evolved to think this way because it benefits our species that enough individuals care about their legacy and the long term survival prospects of their own offspring. The offspring then feel the same way and so the species survives.

My 'intellectual' objection (and I use the word very loosely) to many of the human behaviours that I think lessen our chances of long term survival is mainly that I consider them stupid and inelegant. I'd be embarrassed to explain them to a Martian.

So, if you were thinking that as an atheist, I wouldn't or shouldn't care because I don't believe that there's anything after my own death that I would care about enough to oppose this new technology, you're wrong, because there is. Nor am I about to start 'judging' whether or not the human race deserves to live because as an atheist, I think that's irrelevant. We live, we do what it takes to live, there need be no purpose or worth.

Would people become sterile regardless, or is it an effect of saying "yes" to your hypothetical improvement?

If people would become become sterile regardless, I would have to admit there is utility in your proposed improvement. That being said, I think saying yes would still be a very specist thing to do.

If not, I think we've merely shifted from "killing future humans" to "sterilizing future humans". A difference sure, but still a fairly ugly violation of other people. It is something I would oppose on the same grounds I would oppose theft that benefits me. I do believe basic moral standards against theft and violence are integral for humans to exist and ultimately for my own well-being, both physically and cognitively.

So why would it be important to me if the human race doesn't go beyond the 600 years? It doesn't. I assume I would be dead before the 600 years are up so...........whats the question again?

And my point is that there is no good reason for an atheist to think otherwise, aside from worrying about suffering. Especially if preventing this demise hurts people now. Yet many atheists talk like they believe otherwise. Which makes me doubt their atheism.

It sounds pretty, but you are forgetting a very central detail - namely your own initial premise: "And my point is that there is no good reason for an atheist to think otherwise"

There are two possible conclusions you have to make when a person refuses your hypothetical improvement to humankind:
1.) The person is not actually an atheist.
2.) The person does not have a good reason for his answer.

What is tedious (for you) about this of course, is that number 2 is begging the question.

I won't write an essey. But in the nut-shell:

It would be quite selfish for not letting enjoy the life for future generations?

I can conduct from what you say: What's the point in living? What's the point of making children? Atleast I'm waiting for my breakfest and morning coffee to enjoy in the sun-rise.

why do grandparents give money to their grandchildren's college fund? they'll be dead before the kids ever get to use it. building for the future gives them more pleasure than the gratification they could get using the money on themselves now.

Even little kids know that building block towers is awesome and it sucks when those towers get knocked over. doesn't even have to be knocked over, even just your sibling threatening to do it as soon as you leave the room still sucks. cause you built it and you want it to stand. you don't want it to be knocked over just because you're done playing with it.

This concept has nothing to do with religion.

There is no good reason for an atheist to like basketball more than baseball. Yet many atheists do. Which makes me doubt their atheism.

Our emotions and desires don't need good reasons underlying them to exist, nor is it necessary for us to justify them by appeal to some foundational basis. It is simply the case that humans tend to care about other humans--not just that they don't suffer, but also that they continue to exist and so on. This even extends to persons that don't currently exist, such as future persons (one of the reasons why so many people are opposed to abortion).

Now, there is a real moral issue here, about whether and to what extent we should include future people in our moral deliberations, one that Parfit, Singer, and others have discussed at length. But I think you are trying to avoid issues of morality here. So what I want to hear is why atheism implies that we shouldn't care about the continued existence of the human race. I care about this, and I've never thought that this was inconsistent with not believing in gods, but presumably you think it somehow is.

You can care if it doesn't adversely affect living humans. But to care more than that implies that you think humans have a special place in the universe, or that there are souls waiting to be born, which is inconsistent with atheism. Obviously no one is forcing anyone to double check whether their cares are consistent. That's only necessary if they want to ARGUE that their thoughts are somehow correct.

it does not imply that.

you seem to be inadvertantly focusing on the future people etc, when you should be focusing on the greedy atheist making the decision now. And sometimes it makes people happy now, to do something for the future.

comparable to how people give to charity to feel good about themselves, not because they really care about the people they help. similarly, an atheist can build a structure to last 1000 years just because it makes him feel good to do it - not because he cares about future souls that will use it.

Groan.

Being an atheist does not mean one is not allowed to value things like continued human existence. And that someone doesn't give the answer you like in a classic ridiculous DS hypothetical isn't cause to doubt their atheism. My goodness.

You can value whatever you want. My question is why an atheist would value it aside from subconscious theism or (or pure emotion that can't be justified with an argument).

This is just incorrect about the implications of caring about something. I care about my parents and siblings more than other people-including their future success, but not because I think they are somehow special or unique from other humans. I also want the Seattle Mariners to win the World Series someday, but I don't think they are unique among baseball teams.

It is also manifestly obvious that we can care about things that don't currently exist. For instance, people often care about their future children.

More to the point, people often care about things because they view them as part of their own identity. For example, I think people often care about the future of e.g New York or the US because being a New Yorker or American is part of how they view themselves. In a similar way, people care about the future of humanity.

Finally, I do think humans are special. We are the most intelligent species on the planet and so insofar as you care about knowledge you might also care about the future of humanity.