But if you do nothing there is no future for life. So what are you talking about? Your choice secures that nobody like you or other humans or any plant, animal etc will exist again (until maybe in another system if its so easy in the distant future if not already-but no evidence). Are you seriously prepared to go out and talk to people on TV say and defend that the rational thing for life is to do nothing and let it happen?

I mean if i told you today you will eat half the food and drink half the water and if you do that tomorrow the sun will rise again but if you drink and eat as usual the sun will never rise again, you insist that the rational thing to do is to do nothing and avoid the reduction? Does it even matter whether you live or not as long as the sun will come up? You have no problem that say all ends with you?

If i told you that you know tomorrow Saturday at 15:34 you will die together with all the people you ever met face to face in your life (i hope you dont die for another 100 years + but imagine the example). Then i also tell you the next day say Sunday at ~16:55 the world in general will die unless you (maybe the other people too but lets say just you now) agree to eat/drink today Friday half the food and water and have to wear a couple more clothes because we wont heat the home, in which case you and all the people you ever met will still die on Saturday but the rest of the world will survive past Sunday indefinitely, are you telling me your response will be the hell with them lets have a party tonight and eat as much as usual or even more, let all life die?

I'm talking about the next few generations that I actually do care sufficiently much about. After that, life can disappear into a black hole for all I care if it means my life and their lives will be much better.


Gong on TV probably wouldn't be in my best interest.


If we're talking about tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, then no. If we're taking about 300 years from now, then yes.

This is why i said that all you ever met die too in order to leave nobody behind that is connected to you in terms of relatives etc. So what is the difference if its the next day after tomorrow or 300 years.

Fine lets say that you and relatives/people met die tomorrow and then 300 years later all the others die too.


We can even give you and relatives 30-70 years before you die where the situation starts with some austerity that doesnt kill you of starvation or anything and there is a chance it may even be improved later as more progress is made but its important to start with austerity now.

Why does it matter if its 1 day or 50 years later?

Are you saying you are prepared to die for mankind in 50 years but not today?

You are not being asked to die for 2,3,6,10 random people today. What is asked is to die so that not all life will be wiped out. Its too much to ask?


This is not about heroism by the way. Very few people want to die right now anyway. Its about the significant difference between the life on 1 person even me vs everything out there.

Are you in effect saying that once i am dead the hell with all of it i dont mind?

I don't want my friends and relatives dying tomorrow because I want them to experience life because I care about them. I don't care if the people in 300 years experience life.

You have clearly never had a mother-in-law.

I'd pretend to care to the extent necessary to make my children happy since I happen to like my children.

That knowledge wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

No you are saying you dont mind if not just people but all life doesnt exist 300 years from today. You are fine with that this happens even if there is something that can remove this alternative that starts with some level of austerity/discomfort today. You still will let it happen.

How about you Brian?

Then you're a despicable human being. You're probably the kind of guy that would cheat on your wife or partner if you think you can get away with it because what they don't know won't hurt them. But if you know they wouldn't want that, and they're trusting you to not do that, then you're continuing in the relationship under false pretenses, and your relationship is a sham. And don't think it won't effect you because it will. It weakens the foundations of the relationship, and eventually the whole house will crumble.

I'm agreeing with Bruce here. I think there's a difference if we are talking 100 years or 300 years. 100 years means you can foresee the problems you are causing when not agreeing. 300 years is starting to contain too many uncertainties, so it may not be worth it. The grandgrandgrandgrandgrand...kids may as well stop breeding, and start to think life wasn't a good idea to begin with, maybe think that letting everything be mineral is better. So it may be just good everything ends, important is enough time to prepare though.

Nature and natural selection is brutal to no end. We all live thanks to billions and billions of tragedies. But maybe it's worth it, can't say for sure.

It depends on how it ends. I like happy endings.

Grow up a little and stop trolling.

Simple answer guys. Rise up to deliver it yes or no.

Something is requested to be done TODAY regardless of the fact that maybe progress alone in 300 years makes us able to deal with it better (otherwise you join my camp that the premise of reduction of quality of life is not correct for such long horizon and all we need is better more sensible social organization and its enough without losing anything). The planet is going to be hit by a moon size object 300 years from now. It will lose all life fast and can recover in thousands of years eventually but without any life in it (all vaporized). Its a reset. You will insist to do nothing we will have space colonies by then no problem. But you didnt give me that answer. I gave it for you trying to salvage your last gram (or facking ounce/28.5 whatever) of humanity.

But i will make it easier for you to eliminate the bs detail you are now suddenly climbing behind ie that 300 years is ok let me live, they will deal with it if it was 100 its my problem but not at 300. They will be ok by now! NO!


Now the earth is not the only system that will die. All the solar system is out because of a nearby ejected from some complex star system black hole eons ago (previously undetected because its black and it had no effects on nearby stars but now can be seen in terms of effects, ie light bending, with modern technology) that was detected in our star system neighborhood having an orbit that will take it close to the sun and destabilize everything.

So no Mars, no Titan, no Moon etc. Its all gone after the encounter because of severe gravitational trajectory alterations that essentially eject all planets out of their orbits.

You need a new solar system or you need to have technology to stop the black hole (good luck with that).


Now it is your problem and not your grand children's.

You are essentially still telling me no, we will do nothing, let life perish, we will change nothing about our life, let it be? Whatever?

No plans whatsoever to find a nearby system and create a mega ship (or more to save more life and more people not just a tiny fraction ie if you have the technology why not go for more, hence why time is important) that can sustain at least thousands of people and animals (or samples of most you can get) in some major climate controlled artificial gravity system that can last centuries until a system previously targeted is finally reached. Such plans require long term technological infrastructure buildup to become realistic, they require space elevators, new propulsion systems, fusion of almost any small elements combination for the propulsion and energy needs in the absence of sun, materials manipulation, nanotechnology, 3d printing, local very compact materials processing into complex tools without a vast industry line to support them, you name it.

None of these are important for any other reason than to solidify the premise that something has to start happening today to catch up.

I could make the asteroid hit in 30 years to make the problem personal but i want to remove that argument from you to expose essentially your massive ethical and logical failure.

I want you to tell me that you will do nothing and let it happen. Dont be afraid, man up and defend your position and prove to me its better than mine that will simply react to the news and establish a plan of action lasting 3 centuries so that life will not end.

Just give me an answer why is it so hard?

There is no failure in logic. If I start from the premise that I only care about life for the next few generations, then I can logically conclude that it is correct to allow the entire universe to get sucked into a black hole in 300 years if it allows my life to improve even slightly. Your premise is that the long term survival of humanity is important. That's an arbitrary premise. I don't fail in logic if I don't accept your arbitrary premise. You fail in logic if you think that I fail in logic. It's very simple, and from a perspective of logic, the matter deserves no further consideration.

How about the ethical failure he mentioned then?

You want to put people of today and for centuries to come to suffer? Doesn't sound very ethical.


Let's make it voluntary, then I'm okay.

The propaganda machine will take care of the rest.

Best solution maybe would be to send out some computers and some freezed genetic material. Sending out an arch (maybe with simulated wood panels?) sounds too stone age and biblical for my taste.

If your income or your free fun time or the idiotic defense spending of 1.5 tril/year (invested in other operations to not lose jobs towards something that is useful instead of things that cause harm and kill or become useless after decades and are recycled) by all countries drops a bit as a result of the forced premise to lose something in order to prepare, you are not going to suffer. Lets not be that soft. Almost everyone that makes 50k per year can live with 25k in some other location or with less luxury. The problem starts if only a few lose and the others dont and they exploit the situation to completely destroy them (ie capitalism). At the worse case you return to the lifestyle your grandfathers had. And then maybe due to the investment in technology out of such long scale effort (that produces massive side benefits) etc you find ways within a very brief period of time to recover all the lifestyle and then some.

Suffering clearly needs to be defined because certain level of suffering although still is worth it in my mind, it becomes now intolerable and very torturous that may crash the person that accepts it moreover their heroism. However an austerity forced across all planet under the understanding that all governments need to coordinate to soft land and not let anyone starve can produce the needed results. If one has 100 mil and you take away 50% from them for the cause their quality of life wont suffer as much as someone going from 50k to 25k. In fact you can probably take out 50% from the population without taking anywhere close to 50% out of the middle class or poor people. Or you could take out 50% form all and offer some of the resulting wealth towards services that prevent failing of essential elements for people in need.


In any case let the OP redefine what suffering means.

In any case its not about whether suffering is ethical. Its about whether suffering is more ethical than losing everything (living nature+civilization future people etc) if you dont suffer at all.

I was saying it in a funny way, but I am completely serious.

I don't find no life to be problematic at all as long as there isn't too much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments towards the end. I'd contribute to a nicer ending or no ending at all if that made the sad part go away.

I can also easily be persuaded to contribute to making future lives enjoyable. The amount would be approximately the amount that I contribute to current starving people that I don't know.

Bruce, your view of logic at least in this instance proves very narrow and not worthy of a scientist or you in general. You will see why next.


So your premise to care for only a few generations is more safe than my premise to care for life in general and have a serious problem if all of it is eliminated very soon in terms of geological time. Mine is arbitrary and yours is not at all in risk of not being self consistent? Seriously?

The logical failure is not so much obvious in the conclusion you draw with that premise although it is already in trouble with the definition of a few generations ahead given that if your son asks you if you care at the same depth for the future generations as he does your answer will have to be no (or a lie) and that will instantly decouple you from the i care for my son 100% idea as you are now lying to him about something important or telling him that something he cares for, you care far less about. Plus whatever that means, if he continues the discussion in such a brilliant way as to engage you in massive failure in order to cover that lie. So either you lie or you prove to him you dont care as much as he does about a certain future level of people/life. Now a brilliant thinker that wants to ensure the other side, who they trust loves them, is telling the truth about a certain issue, can create an elaborate sequence of steps that will force the other side in order to cover the lie to commit larger and larger ethical missteps that eventually will be able to rise to an intolerable size and crash the lie or deliver harm to the loved one (i believe you took that line with BTM earlier) . So if the son cares enough can design such test for you.

Not only that but you are essentially limiting the options your son has in terms of eg time travel by not caring deep enough. That kid for example could work on a new method to travel fast that he wishes to test and go into the future of earth and then depend on the ability once back to have the system waiting there for him. You have removed with your choice one of the possible things your kid can do in his life. Now that is not as important possibly but elaborate thinking can essentially make it important if we put effort into it. We can essentially create a big problem for someone that takes that naive position of caring in some declining manner for something so important as EVERYTHING past a certain point. I essentially argue here that if we put effort into it we will see that as we get closer to that date there are certain things that no longer make sense to do for many people or countries or institutions that will have started to impact life of the people you care long before we get there to the point you decided you no longer care. Social unrest and collapse of peace/law and proper cultural behavior is very likely if there is nothing to look up in your future. Did you examine for sure the ramifications of the position to not care for mankind or life past a given future point? What suffering can this imply? Such cutoff i am almost confident can be taken to imply massive problems even for very close to present dates. I will let you honestly investigate the possibilities and conflicts here with your offspring and the way society develops as a result of not caring for certain things anymore. You may not like what you find well in advance of the cruel date.

The major other problem is in that premise itself and not how naively is handled. The more obvious failure is earlier. In deciding to care only for a few generations when you know something is required to eliminate a major problem starting today, you essentially decide that you do not care for the long term survival of life past the general time period we are today. That is essentially equivalent to not caring about life at all given that your choice today is significant and your decision seals the deal (at least as somewhat unrealistically suggested at this thread's starting point, but we need to insist on it, otherwise what will happen is that you dont care, the next son doesnt care etc, at some point the last in line or before will start caring and make a run in the last minute and maybe save something maybe not, so we better not take that risk because it will always carry a nonzero probability to kill the system, because we didnt reach critical technology needed, a probability that we fully own today by doing nothing).

So why is your premise better than mine? Mine is to care about life in general as something important wothy to continue its exploration/adventure. I do so based on the results i have seen produced by complexity that i find intriguing and without which this very discussion for instance cant exist. So if you are not interested in saving life you are in fact essentially telling me you dont care for this discussion or any discussion or any chance such discussion will improve in the future by better math or physics etc. So its like telling me the open problems you have read about in math, physics etc that will not be solved as a result are permanently lost and the Hilbert gravestone message is unimportant for you. How can someone calling himself a scientist has such a no problem position on essentially ending science together with that end of life that is coming. How can you care for a system and still dont mind that it will come to a halt because you didnt act. People have died so that democracy or freedom or justice will exist for future generations. And we wont do even a little for something much bigger than all those things added.

Can you recongize how insane is to insist on using logic for anything in general that is a work in progress when that logic derives its productive value from knowledge and better improving premises and you simply embrace the idea that this all ends soon. Lets end therefore any logical effort to find the truth or attain wisdom because we know it cant be finished, it will be lost.

And you have no problem with it. You find all this logical and self consistent. You find logical to engage in behavior that places an end to the application of logic and knowledge. That sure is not a problem for the system you develop after accepting your premise that your quality of life now is more important than life in general, but think how that premise hurts the very principle of science and math and effort to build culture and gain wisdom. Is therefore such premise self consistent, can it be logical to take a position that eliminates the future application of logic by anyone (that we know). Maybe that premise is a terrible starting point.

But my premise that life, that has taken us to the ability to even have logic and math and all the other things, seems to be important and valuable and have an independent utility for the universe (certainly independent of humanity), in terms of making it very interesting and offering a process to wisdom and self knowledge, opening otherwise remote or impossible routes etc, is for you arbitrary and inferior to your premise. You need my premise in order for you to be here to try to make any premise and carry a discussion past the next 300. What kind if insanity is this demonstrated in this thread? You show your respect for the logical process, the scientific method etc by signing off in t-300y. Game over.

Listen Bruce. I am very close to deciding you are trolling hard on purpose here. But i am not your toy. And 95% of the reasons i post have nothing to do with you when i respond to you by the way so even if you are playing i put it to better use for others and me. But if that is what you are doing know that i have absolutely no problem never interacting with you again because i like people with integrity. It would be still a much smaller loss than the loss of all life 300 years from now i can assure you. Especially since neither i nor you have decided 100% that we will be dead by then (however tiny miniscule chance that carries) and the possibility at least of our kids if we have them (unless you already had yours) that they will live way past current ~115y levels exists, making potentially real the loss in their lifetimes or that of your grand children. So if you think you care for your grandchildren as you claim, you probably are not exactly honest as it can very easily be their problem already.

In fact a person that actually cares for their grandchildren as much as you think you do (regardless of OP situation now) has to give current technology/civilization a project, to have always as mankind in place a methodology/mechanism/relative ease to produce a life/civilization saving solution at a brief moment's notice. This is the ethical responsibility of any advanced civilization.


And if you ask me today what i can do if i learned that life ends in 100 days all i can try as mankind is to create as fast as possible a database with all knowledge and add in it some biological material, send it in orbit around the sun and program it to land in a future earth say 10000 years from now if the on board computers can clear the threshold of survivability and release to the new earth the biological content in order to start everything again with some small probability hoping millions of years later something can exist to recover the culture. Thats all as mankind we could do at this time (and who knows maybe not even that). And that is our failure given our technology and our insane drive to develop such absurd defense budgets for example and other stupid priorities. Essentially its more important for a stupid moronic superpower today to avoid a terrorist attack that at best may kill a few thousands than have a plan in place to save the entire planet if the unthinkable came true. On the one hand you (mankind) prepare to avoid something that has tiny utility for mankind at large (avoiding an attack given how many more people we lose each year to other things we do nothing about) and on the other you dont care for something that seems to have massive utility even if it comes with a tiny probability. The comparison is insane. But of course its guys like you that tolerate it apparently. Congratulations for remaining loyal to their perversions under the illusion that you are logical (or more logical than the case i offered). A real scientist by the way will never close the door to the possibility their overall logic is worse than they originally thought. It is not an axiom of an advanced ethical human to decide that someone else,or a particular someone else, can never really show them something they missed that is important. Your overall tone in mocking me in multiple occasions suggests so.



I still need an answer in what i asked or a statement that you wont answer it. A position is asked here. Deliver it. Are you telling me you will do nothing and allow it to end at 300? Is that a yes? I want you to state it clearly so that we can have it on record 10 or 100 years from now. The silence is also a record.

I could ship $1000 a year for The Sake. Maybe up to $3000.

I mean, people like you masque would get a lot of people and states to pay voluntarily. They don't like to look foolish, when their action are tracked 1, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 years from now. 299 years forward many people wouldn't do just about anything else than spit on their graves. Many don't want to be looked up after death and be seen as just idiots. I don't find it appealing myself. We want to leave some legacy, even if it in my case much is about living a decent life.

It's not an ethical issue. Ethics is a way for living people to cooperate with each other, or as Bertrand Russell said, it's people telling other people what sacrifices they need to make to get along with them. The people 300 years from now can't tell me anything, and I need nothing from them. Easy game.

You are saying what people in general like and dislike. We like the idea that future people will look back on us fondly and dislike the idea that they will look back on us unfavorably.

The problem is that if Bruce doesn't happen to have the same sorts of feelings it isn't convincing unless, as he pointed out, you put some teeth on it to get him to comply.

Stewardship is part of some ethical systems. In a place where stewardship is required by the locals, it is certainly an ethical issue.

Would Bertrand Russel advocate doing nothing? Why did he do what he did in his life? In my view one of his hopes was that he would motivate proper thinking in the future and help build something bigger than he lived to see. Why write books? If all you look is to influence people in your time it seems contrary to the experience of ourselves that clearly still read and benefit from the work of long ago dead people. Many authors and scientists are in the same position. Future is also something that always motivates us. Not having a future is very intriguing prospect to study philosophically. How does a civilization with a known expiration designs itself? How can one gauge the value of a yet to be fulfilled future given our past trends?

In the end i would hope each time anyone here helps others it is done with the firm belief (but not only) that it matters and creates a better world that ultimately will outlive us all and prove our collective immortality together with the rest of our lives, not to offer us some stupid ego victory after death, but to produce a more intriguing experience than the one we had and motivate further synthesis. This alone has to be worth a great deal. That someone somewhere will have that experience for which most of us are likely glad to have lived...


If a threat was present i would start by reorganizing society towards trying to save life in general and hopefully eventually develop such a massive level of technology (originally not even anticipated) that it would even be able to eliminate the threat, any threat and improve quality of life as well. That is the true human spirit. An audacious stand. And because of it, a systematic effort to defeat the problem however in need of initial austerity, has always the power to eventually reverse the austerity and enjoy unbelievable benefits. This not originally anticipated possibility, that is often born out of any coordinated large scale effort in history, is because of the exponentially potent creative character of the enterprise of discovery that our drama proves all about.

Huh!?? I have no plans to come back after I am dead to push people I've never met in front of busses. I don't even have plans to push anyone I have met in front of a bus.

As I've already mentioned, I have a certain amount of feelings toward humanity itself. That would include all the people I have never and will never meet.

You said that it wouldn't bother you at all to fail to take action to avoid killing your unborn grandchild shortly after your child dies as they don't know about it. I was giving another example of the same type of thinking.


Surely you're too smart to think that failing to act to save a life for your own benefit is different from killing someone for your own benefit.<sup>*


*</sup>I'm channeling my inner chezlaw.

No, I said that if I didn't care, it wouldn't bother me that I didn't care. There are people I care about as individuals that have people they care about as individuals that I don't care about as individuals. This doesn't bother me.

That whole humanity thing I've been mentioning applies if I haven't met them. And generally I tend to like most people that I've met sufficiently to not mind yelling "watch out!" if they are about to step in front of a bus.

So, I'm safe.

[quote]Surely you're too smart to think that failing to act to save a life for your own benefit is different from killing someone for your own benefit.

You had me committing not just omitting, which is why I asked.

The future of humanity is no more important to me than the future of any other animal.