Humans are fundamentally evil

[Atla]

Humans:

~15% more good than evil;
~75% more evil than good;
~9% evil;
~1% true evil.

Most people want to be good, but overall they fail due to various shortcomings and circumstances. Overall humanity is more evil than good, so one could make the argument that prolonging the human race is in itself an evil endeavour.

[Greta]

... one could make the argument that prolonging the human race is in itself an evil endeavour.

One could but I would not. Humans rather more appear to be change agents like the blue green algae of the Permian extinction event. I don't consider the blue green algae to be evil either, even though it caused innumerable deaths. If a species is successful enough, that's what it does.

[Atla]

... one could make the argument that prolonging the human race is in itself an evil endeavour.

One could but I would not. Humans rather more appear to be change agents like the blue green algae of the Permian extinction event. I don't consider the blue green algae to be evil either, even though it caused innumerable deaths. If a species is successful enough, that's what it does.

I used to assume too that there is a future, but now I doubt it. I think humanity can't stop it's own complete self-destruction. If that's the case then maybe it's better to just get it over with sooner.

Yes I think that a very possible scenario is that humans are change agents. But probably not in the creation of some superior AI, and humanity probably won't survive the change either.
There might be a much more surprising ending to all of this, that rarely gets mentioned. Maybe it will happen in a few decades actually, we shall see.

[Greta]

... one could make the argument that prolonging the human race is in itself an evil endeavour.

One could but I would not. Humans rather more appear to be change agents like the blue green algae of the Permian extinction event. I don't consider the blue green algae to be evil either, even though it caused innumerable deaths. If a species is successful enough, that's what it does.

I used to assume too that there is a future, but now I doubt it. I think humanity can't stop it's own complete self-destruction. If that's the case then maybe it's better to just get it over with sooner.

Yes I think that a very possible scenario is that humans are change agents. But probably not in the creation of some superior AI, and humanity probably won't survive the change either.
There might be a much more surprising ending to all of this, that rarely gets mentioned. Maybe it will happen in a few decades actually, we shall see.

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

[Atla]

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

They would probably just destroy themselves too, plus they would inherit a planet in a much worse shape, with much less reserves.

No, we are here now, I think that if what is going on in this world is part of a longer, perhaps infinite evolution chain, then the next jump will happen in the near future, and will have to do with humans. But first, most advanced life has to die.. that too is part of it.

[Dontaskme]

Humans are the planets number one predator.

Their only predator is themselves.

The good news is that the world of humans is a simulation within this 3D matrix, it's a game. And the programmer is you aka infinite source energy. If you don't like a particular programme you can always pull the plug on it and start a new one.

The creator of ''Call of Duty'' video game is the same one that created the ''Human Avatar''within this 3D matrix we call the world.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans:

~15% more good than evil;
~75% more evil than good;
~9% evil;
~1% true evil.

Most people want to be good, but overall they fail due to various shortcomings and circumstances. Overall humanity is more evil than good, so one could make the argument that prolonging the human race is in itself an evil endeavour.

I agree with your relative %s.

If we use 'genocide' and the likes as a 100/100 evil or evilness and petty crimes as 10/100 evil, then I would present the following %s, i.e.

• 0-10/100 evilness = 15%
  11-70/100 evilness = 75%
  80-90/100 evilness = 9%
  >90/100 evilness = 1%

Generally and relatively the above classifications is quite accurate in term of the evilness and its activeness within humanity.

One point is the compulsion and drive to commit evil acts is driven by a neural system that is quite independent of the neural system that drive the person to do good.
Humans has the same beastly propensity like animals but they are called 'evil' when blended with self-awareness and consciousness with increased intensity.

In this sense we can do a separate classification like the above for 'good.'

I would say the fundamental and systems re 'evil' were inherited from billion of years ago and thus it has been inherent for a long time.
The neural system for the moral drive to do good within humanity is relatively a very recent emergence in a different part of the brain, i.e. the neo-cortex with is primarily a human brain.

Despite the failures, the above implied a rising trend that the propensity to do good overrides the compulsion commit evil acts.
Thus prolonging the human race will give humanity to evolve to greater good and lesser evil.
I believe there is a positive trend of good prevailing over evil and the question is how to expedite the neural processes within the average human.

That can only be achieve by cultivating a greater understanding of what is evil, find its root cause, determine and implement strategies to prevent and reduce evil to an optimal minimal.

Those who deter the discussion of what is evil and condemn critiques of evil are a hindrance and liability to humanity.

[-1-]

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

My money is on Cockroaches as the surviving race that will rise to be on top of the food chain. They are incredibly smart, and versatile. They run away when danger presents. Many humans, who flaunt high intelligence, can't do that. Me, with my 64 years of age, heart disease and CAD/CAM, can't run five steps in a row.

Also, Cockroaches have a survival trait that humans lack: they are so ugly, that their predators -- such as humans -- are stunned, before killing them, and that gives them a chance to run away.

[Atla]

Despite the failures, the above implied a rising trend that the propensity to do good overrides the compulsion commit evil acts.
Thus prolonging the human race will give humanity to evolve to greater good and lesser evil.
I believe there is a positive trend of good prevailing over evil and the question is how to expedite the neural processes within the average human.

That can only be achieve by cultivating a greater understanding of what is evil, find its root cause, determine and implement strategies to prevent and reduce evil to an optimal minimal.

By and large there is some positive trend, but I think it's definitely not enough. We are beyond the point of no return now. The average human's neural processes just can't be enhanced enough, I think both their EQ and IQ would have to be raised by 20-30 points in order to turn things around, which seems to be impossible before we destroy ourselves.

We would also have to sterilize/lock away on an island all the psychopaths and sociopaths, and to do so we would need a one world government, which is not going to happen anytime soon.

[Greta]

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

My money is on Cockroaches as the surviving race that will rise to be on top of the food chain. They are incredibly smart, and versatile. They run away when danger presents. Many humans, who flaunt high intelligence, can't do that. Me, with my 64 years of age, heart disease and CAD/CAM, can't run five steps in a row.

Also, Cockroaches have a survival trait that humans lack: they are so ugly, that their predators -- such as humans -- are stunned, before killing them, and that gives them a chance to run away.

Rats have roaches beat. No contest. The entire mammal line grew from a primitive shewlike creature that survived the natural disasters that killed off the large dinosaurs. Rats are far smarter so the new mammal line would be far more intelligent right from the get go.

One of the smarter insects, roaches, is still a very long way behind rats. If humans had little hairs attached to their limbs which immediately triggered a sprint response under certain stimuli, then humans would be as good at running from danger as roaches. Alas, the little hairs on our limbs don't do much.

[-1-]

Alas, the little hairs on our limbs don't do much.

On a serious note, we don't know the how the RANDOM evolutionary process will create a new species to be on top of the food chain. Could be a mutant descendant line of rats, or of cockroaches, or of frogs. Do you know ahead of time which species will mutate which way?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

My money is on Cockroaches as the surviving race that will rise to be on top of the food chain. They are incredibly smart, and versatile. They run away when danger presents. Many humans, who flaunt high intelligence, can't do that. Me, with my 64 years of age, heart disease and CAD/CAM, can't run five steps in a row.

Also, Cockroaches have a survival trait that humans lack: they are so ugly, that their predators -- such as humans -- are stunned, before killing them, and that gives them a chance to run away.

Rats have roaches beat. No contest. The entire mammal line grew from a primitive shewlike creature that survived the natural disasters that killed off the large dinosaurs. Rats are far smarter so the new mammal line would be far more intelligent right from the get go.

One of the smarter insects, roaches, is still a very long way behind rats. If humans had little hairs attached to their limbs which immediately triggered a sprint response under certain stimuli, then humans would be as good at running from danger as roaches. Alas, the little hairs on our limbs don't do much.

True. Cockroaches have always seemed highly intelligent to me. I get the big outdoor ones coming inside occasionally, and have to put them back outside. I didn't know that about the hairs on the hairs on their limbs.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Worst case, Atla, is decimation of an irradiated biosphere. Then again, in fifty million years or less - not so long in the greater scheme of things - there would be time for new civilisations to evolve (probably from rats), and they would have the advantage of finding some of our old preserved stuff.

My money is on Cockroaches as the surviving race that will rise to be on top of the food chain. They are incredibly smart, and versatile. They run away when danger presents. Many humans, who flaunt high intelligence, can't do that. Me, with my 64 years of age, heart disease and CAD/CAM, can't run five steps in a row.

Also, Cockroaches have a survival trait that humans lack: they are so ugly, that their predators -- such as humans -- are stunned, before killing them, and that gives them a chance to run away.

Apparently they are even more revolted by us. The outdoor ones aren't 'ugly'--just a bit intimidating.

[Greta]

Indeed Veg. If roaches took up modelling, competitive swimming or weightlighting they'd have to shave. Google tells me that the hairs are called sensilla and their sensitivity is one reason why they are so hard to catch.

Alas, the little hairs on our limbs don't do much.

On a serious note, we don't know the how the RANDOM evolutionary process will create a new species to be on top of the food chain. Could be a mutant descendant line of rats, or of cockroaches, or of frogs. Do you know ahead of time which species will mutate which way?

All we can do is work from the examples we have. My money's on rats but who knows? Maybe a parasite will wipe them out? I'd then lose my money

I'm not inclined to judge a species as "evil" for being predatory and dominant just because the dominance has caused imbalances. To be "evil' denotes a choice and I don't see choices made by humanity, only many individual humans trying to live their lives, most of whom are almost as innocent as other species, us here included.

We humans, like other animals, are basically being lead by the environment to do what we think feels right at the time. The environment is currently forcing humans to change into whatever we are changing into. None of what humanity is doing is a choice but has been driven by a long unbroken chain of tragedies of the commons.

One may point to the puppetmasters like the Kochs, Murdochs and Rothschildren. In truth, they are not in control either, rather they are acting as dumb terminals that fulfil transformative entropic functions, roles which would be fulfilled by others if they did not exist. They are just the current faces behind historically consistent social functions.

All of this - the pollution, overpopulation, climate change, environmental vandalism, thoughtless consumption, corruption and manipulation, needless aggression and greed, growing mindless groupthink and so on - was always going to happen to a brand new intelligent species without any precedents from which to learn. In hindsight, the only questions were when and how it would transpire (failing "wild card" asteroids).

The rest of my money is on AI or significantly synthetic cyborgs being the next dominant, and I think they will be much more positive than we anticipate ... but, of course, they might still also end up being apocalyptic. Do we have a choice with AI? Can we pull the plug? Nope. If the US stops the research then China continues, if China stops, then India continues, Russia, France, Japan, Germany, Korea, Brazil ...

As always, tragedies of the commons are doing the shaping as "evil humans with choice" simply keep on responding to changing exigencies and opportunities.

[-1-]

Indeed Veg. If roaches took up modelling, competitive swimming or weightlighting they'd have to shave. Google tells me that the hairs are called sensilla and their sensitivity is one reason why they are so hard to catch.

Alas, the little hairs on our limbs don't do much.

On a serious note, we don't know the how the RANDOM evolutionary process will create a new species to be on top of the food chain. Could be a mutant descendant line of rats, or of cockroaches, or of frogs. Do you know ahead of time which species will mutate which way?

All we can do is work from the examples we have. My money's on rats but who knows? Maybe a parasite will wipe them out? I'd then lose my money

I'm not inclined to judge a species as "evil" for being predatory and dominant just because the dominance has caused imbalances. To be "evil' denotes a choice and I don't see choices made by humanity, only many individual humans trying to live their lives, most of whom are almost as innocent as other species, us here included.

We humans, like other animals, are basically being lead by the environment to do what we think feels right at the time. The environment is currently forcing humans to change into whatever we are changing into. None of what humanity is doing is a choice but has been driven by a long unbroken chain of tragedies of the commons.

One may point to the puppetmasters like the Kochs, Murdochs and Rothschildren. In truth, they are not in control either, rather they are acting as dumb terminals that fulfil transformative entropic functions, roles which would be fulfilled by others if they did not exist. They are just the current faces behind historically consistent social functions.

All of this - the pollution, overpopulation, climate change, environmental vandalism, thoughtless consumption, corruption and manipulation, needless aggression and greed, growing mindless groupthink and so on - was always going to happen to a brand new intelligent species without any precedents from which to learn. In hindsight, the only questions were when and how it would transpire (failing "wild card" asteroids).

The rest of my money is on AI or significantly synthetic cyborgs being the next dominant, and I think they will be much more positive than we anticipate ... but, of course, they might still also end up being apocalyptic. Do we have a choice with AI? Can we pull the plug? Nope. If the US stops the research then China continues, if China stops, then India continues, Russia, France, Japan, Germany, Korea, Brazil ...

As always, tragedies of the commons are doing the shaping as "evil humans with choice" simply keep on responding to changing exigencies and opportunities.

That was a pretty long-winded (albeit reasonable) explanation what you put your money on.

Mine is shorter. I don't have any money. Case closed.