Survival of the Human Species? Who Cares?

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Compassion and empathy are inherent potentials 'programmed' in ALL humans as embedded in the human DNA and brain. But these potentials are not very active [perhaps even dormant] in the majority of people at present.

Your "at present" implies there was a time or will be a time, when these potentials have been or will be active. Can you pinpoint a culture when these potentials were active? It would be especially encouraging to find such a culture in the European past however long ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Compassion and empathy are inherent potentials 'programmed' in ALL humans as embedded in the human DNA and brain. But these potentials are not very active [perhaps even dormant] in the majority of people at present.

Your "at present" implies there was a time or will be a time, when these potentials have been or will be active. Can you pinpoint a culture when these potentials were active? It would be especially encouraging to find such a culture in the European past however long ago.

There were acts of empathy and compassions by specific people or groups in the past, but
it is most effective if we consider the average and the trends within humanity from past to present.

Take slavery for example.
More than 10,000 years ago to the last 100 years, the empathy and compassion of the average person would be very inactive in regard to the enslavement of humans and the tortures and terrible suffering the slaves had to endure.
Re Normal Distribution, there could be a small percentile with active empathy but there is nothing they can do against the majority.

It is only within the last 100 years to the present that the empathy toward slavery is triggered in the majority [or a critical mass] to the extent that at present all sovereign nations has banned and made Chattel Slavery illegal.
This is the evidence that the empathy and compassion potentials are unfolding to be more active in contrast to the past.

One point to note is, the empathy and compassion drive is not something that is universal for everyone. This mean that most people [at present] may empathize in one [all a few] situation but not in all cases. Example, most people may have empathy for slaves at present but may not be for racism, war, bullying, crimes, other pains, etc.

Another point is, blind empathy and compassion, i.e. an over active empathy potential can be counterproductive if not rationalized or optimized. There are many cases of groups of people drowned/killed in trying [voluntarily and spontaneously] to save a drowning dog [or person in need] merely out of blind empathy.

The future of humanity is thus to expedite the unfoldment of the inherent empathy and compassion potentials in ALL [or majority] humans but at the same time ensure their acts of empathy and compassion are done rationally and optimally.

[Sculptor]

At this point of the discussion, the critical target is the survival of the human species.

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

I don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

My view is that you are denying the experience of another.
Its pretty obvious that you have your view based on your cherry picked "evidence", and that simplicity has his.
The problem here is that you seem to think that there can be an answer. Some sort of absolute truth, that you are right and he is wrong.
To this aim you have produced out of you hat of unfounded assumptions a fallacy. The one you have chosen today is the naturalistic fallacy, but you are using it to try to counter what is basically a moral issue, or even just a personal issue.
And so you have not begun to answer the question put by simplicity.
So who cares if humanity survives? We'll all be dead in a 100 years, and as Simplicity says all species change, or become extinct. SO why would it be important to you? There is a jolly good set af arguments to suggest that the world would be much better off if there were no humans on it.
I'm all for that.

[seeds]

Well, I suggest that you "step-back" even further from what seems to be a purely materialistic outlook on life and try to be open to at least the "possibility" that there may be a "higher intelligence" behind the creation of the universe, and that the human consciousness (mind/soul) may have a greater purpose that will play-out in a higher (transcendent) context of reality.

I don't discount anything, but what does that have to do with what we know?

I tried to answer that question in the rest of the post that you extracted that quote from. And my answer was an attempt to counter the nihilism you expressed in the following statement...

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

And in regards to what it has to do with "what we know," well, what we know is that the vast majority of humans on earth desperately need some semblance of "hope" that there may be more to life than the few fleeting moments we spend on this planet.

So instead of the dark and hopeless nihilism implicit in your "...who cares if humans go extinct..." philosophy,...

...why not be a purveyor of hope that life might possibly hold a higher purpose for us, and that the consciousness of the loved one you just buried in the cold ground is still alive and has awakened into a higher context of reality (as most of our spiritual traditions suggest).

If we are wrong in promoting a positive and hope-filled model of reality, and we simply blink-out of existence forever at the moment of death, then nobody will be around to ridicule our false assertions.

However, if we are right, then not only are we expressing a fundamental truth of our impending destiny, but we will also be providing something useful to our fellow humans - something that can perhaps help them through their darkest hours on earth.

I guess my point is that seeing how no one knows for certain which is true, then why not err on the side of "hope"?

Why not consider the possibility that whatever it is that managed to awaken us into existence initially via the creation of the unthinkable order of the universe,...

...is also capable of awakening us (birthing us) into yet a higher context of reality that we simply cannot see or fathom from our present ("embryonic") perspective?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Seriously, what does it matter whether we survive as a species? All species come and go [like all things]. If it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, or whenever...who cares?

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

I don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

My view is that you are denying the experience of another.
Its pretty obvious that you have your view based on your cherry picked "evidence", and that simplicity has his.
The problem here is that you seem to think that there can be an answer. Some sort of absolute truth, that you are right and he is wrong.
To this aim you have produced out of you hat of unfounded assumptions a fallacy. The one you have chosen today is the naturalistic fallacy, but you are using it to try to counter what is basically a moral issue, or even just a personal issue.
And so you have not begun to answer the question put by simplicity.
So who cares if humanity survives? We'll all be dead in a 100 years, and as Simplicity says all species change, or become extinct. SO why would it be important to you? There is a jolly good set af arguments to suggest that the world would be much better off if there were no humans on it.
I'm all for that.

The Naturalistic Fallacy [Moore] is full of holes. You should at least counter all its criticisms before pushing for it blindly.

Obviously you have not read all my subsequent posts which had addressed all the questions you raised above.

As I had stated, ALL humans are 'programmed' with sufficient and necessary inherent natures and drives to care for the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

That you have not committed suicide despite the pessimisms you have is indication of the implicit 'care' you have exercised to ensure the survival of the species in some ways in accordance to the 'programmed' nature.

The point is when you have the 'who cares?' attitude but you are driven to 'care' in a blind fashion. It would be more effectively to do it rationally and wisely in alignment [go with the flow] with what is natural to avoid unnecessary pains and sufferings.
Note flow as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

I am not imposing my views [go ahead and act as you like] but rather argue for my stance with evidences and justifications.
Thus my argument is on why all humans [if not the majority] should care for the survival of the species in alignment with its inherent nature, rather than adopt the indifferent attitude of 'who cares' with the consequences of pains and sufferings due to swimming against the flow.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Compassion and empathy are inherent potentials 'programmed' in ALL humans as embedded in the human DNA and brain. But these potentials are not very active [perhaps even dormant] in the majority of people at present.

Your "at present" implies there was a time or will be a time, when these potentials have been or will be active. Can you pinpoint a culture when these potentials were active? It would be especially encouraging to find such a culture in the European past however long ago.

There were acts of empathy and compassions by specific people or groups in the past, but
it is most effective if we consider the average and the trends within humanity from past to present.

Take slavery for example.
More than 10,000 years ago to the last 100 years, the empathy and compassion of the average person would be very inactive in regard to the enslavement of humans and the tortures and terrible suffering the slaves had to endure.
Re Normal Distribution, there could be a small percentile with active empathy but there is nothing they can do against the majority.

It is only within the last 100 years to the present that the empathy toward slavery is triggered in the majority [or a critical mass] to the extent that at present all sovereign nations has banned and made Chattel Slavery illegal.
This is the evidence that the empathy and compassion potentials are unfolding to be more active in contrast to the past.

One point to note is, the empathy and compassion drive is not something that is universal for everyone. This mean that most people [at present] may empathize in one [all a few] situation but not in all cases. Example, most people may have empathy for slaves at present but may not be for racism, war, bullying, crimes, other pains, etc.

Another point is, blind empathy and compassion, i.e. an over active empathy potential can be counterproductive if not rationalized or optimized. There are many cases of groups of people drowned/killed in trying [voluntarily and spontaneously] to save a drowning dog [or person in need] merely out of blind empathy.

The future of humanity is thus to expedite the unfoldment of the inherent empathy and compassion potentials in ALL [or majority] humans but at the same time ensure their acts of empathy and compassion are done rationally and optimally.

My intuition is to agree but I think I should fight this intuition because I don't want to be complacent, or biased by my personal comfort that I fear to lose.

[Sculptor]

Should the above attitude be adopted by each an every individual human being?

I don't agree with the above kind of thinking.
It is evident in evolution since the beginning from the smallest to the most complex living things [humans], there are a set of their core activities* that are geared to preserve the survival of a collective or group of similar living things, generally identified as the species [note the majority with the same characteristics].

* i.e. as evident in the MAJORITY's [note majority not all] drive to sustain survival [till the inevitable] by the individuals, to reproduce and taking care of the next generation and be repeated by the next generation till the inevitable.

Your views?

My view is that you are denying the experience of another.
Its pretty obvious that you have your view based on your cherry picked "evidence", and that simplicity has his.
The problem here is that you seem to think that there can be an answer. Some sort of absolute truth, that you are right and he is wrong.
To this aim you have produced out of you hat of unfounded assumptions a fallacy. The one you have chosen today is the naturalistic fallacy, but you are using it to try to counter what is basically a moral issue, or even just a personal issue.
And so you have not begun to answer the question put by simplicity.
So who cares if humanity survives? We'll all be dead in a 100 years, and as Simplicity says all species change, or become extinct. SO why would it be important to you? There is a jolly good set af arguments to suggest that the world would be much better off if there were no humans on it.
I'm all for that.

The Naturalistic Fallacy [Moore] is full of holes. You should at least counter all its criticisms before pushing for it blindly.

If you want to pick holes, say what they are.
Until then justify why you think your line of argument (naturalistic) is relevant to simplicity's POV'

Obviously you have not read all my subsequent posts which had addressed all the questions you raised above.

But you have still not justified why you think humans have the right to persists on earth.

As I had stated, ALL humans are 'programmed' with sufficient and necessary inherent natures and drives to care for the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

Ebola is programmed to kill humans. That does not give it the right to survive.
You argument is empty pleading.

That you have not committed suicide despite the pessimisms you have is indication of the implicit 'care' you have exercised to ensure the survival of the species in some ways in accordance to the 'programmed' nature.

That I have not committed suicide is an indication that I enjoy life. That does not give me or any human the right to survive in perpetuity. In fact, as I have already said, the world would be a better place for having no other humans. Or at least from my POV I'd prefer it if there were only less then 1 million.

The point is when you have the 'who cares?' attitude but you are driven to 'care' in a blind fashion. It would be more effectively to do it rationally and wisely in alignment [go with the flow] with what is natural to avoid unnecessary pains and sufferings.

More irrelevances.
Where is your argument?

I am not imposing my views [go ahead and act as you like] but rather argue for my stance with evidences and justifications.

We are all still waiting. All you have is fallacies and platitudes.

Thus my argument is on why all humans [if not the majority] should care for the survival of the species in alignment with its inherent nature, rather than adopt the indifferent attitude of 'who cares' with the consequences of pains and sufferings due to swimming against the flow.

No - you have offered ZERO argument.
You have the urge of a virus, nothing more

[Skepdick]

Tell that to all the folks over the millennia who have been struck down by all sorts of natural causes [ice ages, other weather events, meteors, viruses and other predators] not to mention our species predilection to exterminate ourselves.

"Tell that to the X" is not an argument.

Fact: Infant mortality in 2021 is orders of magnutude less likely than it was in 500BC.
Cynic: Tell that to the dead babies.

There will always be dead babies. The whole point is that it's becoming less and less common as our knowledge and technology advances.

I bet that Vegas would consider our long-term survival a serious long-shot.

You are saying nothing testable whatsoever. Your argument is not even wrong. One gambler's "long shot" is another's "not long enough".

Ice ages are less threatening to species who know how to regulate temperature in closed spaces (heaters, airconditioning).
Weather events less threatening to species who can construct shelters and rapidly relocate geographically.
Meteorites are less threatening to multiplanetary species.
Viruses are less threatening to species who have effective medicine.
Most predators are less threatening to species who have guns. Humans are the apex predator.

The game of survival is multi-faceted. In so far as I can tell humanity can survive a whole bunch of things that the average animal cannot.

[simplicity]

Ice ages are less threatening to species who know how to regulate temperature in closed spaces (heaters, air conditioning).

I don't believe you have thought this one out completely.

Most predators are less threatening to species who have guns. Humans are the apex predator.

Until we're not...

The game of survival is multi-faceted. In so far as I can tell humanity can survive a whole bunch of things that the average animal cannot.

Let have this conversation a few million years hence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Your "at present" implies there was a time or will be a time, when these potentials have been or will be active. Can you pinpoint a culture when these potentials were active? It would be especially encouraging to find such a culture in the European past however long ago.

There were acts of empathy and compassions by specific people or groups in the past, but
it is most effective if we consider the average and the trends within humanity from past to present.

Take slavery for example.
More than 10,000 years ago to the last 100 years, the empathy and compassion of the average person would be very inactive in regard to the enslavement of humans and the tortures and terrible suffering the slaves had to endure.
Re Normal Distribution, there could be a small percentile with active empathy but there is nothing they can do against the majority.

It is only within the last 100 years to the present that the empathy toward slavery is triggered in the majority [or a critical mass] to the extent that at present all sovereign nations has banned and made Chattel Slavery illegal.
This is the evidence that the empathy and compassion potentials are unfolding to be more active in contrast to the past.

One point to note is, the empathy and compassion drive is not something that is universal for everyone. This mean that most people [at present] may empathize in one [all a few] situation but not in all cases. Example, most people may have empathy for slaves at present but may not be for racism, war, bullying, crimes, other pains, etc.

Another point is, blind empathy and compassion, i.e. an over active empathy potential can be counterproductive if not rationalized or optimized. There are many cases of groups of people drowned/killed in trying [voluntarily and spontaneously] to save a drowning dog [or person in need] merely out of blind empathy.

The future of humanity is thus to expedite the unfoldment of the inherent empathy and compassion potentials in ALL [or majority] humans but at the same time ensure their acts of empathy and compassion are done rationally and optimally.

My intuition is to agree but I think I should fight this intuition because I don't want to be complacent, or biased by my personal comfort that I fear to lose.

This is the same as suggesting more of the majority of humans to be educated or be wiser [or improve their personal character] which I don't see why anyone should fear to loose any personal comfort in striving for such gains. On the contrary one may gain more personal comfort[s] with the acquisition of these new traits.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My view is that you are denying the experience of another.
Its pretty obvious that you have your view based on your cherry picked "evidence", and that simplicity has his.
The problem here is that you seem to think that there can be an answer. Some sort of absolute truth, that you are right and he is wrong.
To this aim you have produced out of you hat of unfounded assumptions a fallacy. The one you have chosen today is the naturalistic fallacy, but you are using it to try to counter what is basically a moral issue, or even just a personal issue.
And so you have not begun to answer the question put by simplicity.
So who cares if humanity survives? We'll all be dead in a 100 years, and as Simplicity says all species change, or become extinct. SO why would it be important to you? There is a jolly good set af arguments to suggest that the world would be much better off if there were no humans on it.
I'm all for that.

The Naturalistic Fallacy [Moore] is full of holes. You should at least counter all its criticisms before pushing for it blindly.

If you want to pick holes, say what they are.
Until then justify why you think your line of argument (naturalistic) is relevant to simplicity's POV'

I have done an in depth research into this, and roughly note;
Criticism of Naturalistic Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalis ... #Criticism

The point is you cannot just throw in your a Natural Fallacy thesis without ensuring you have covered and countered its major objections.

Obviously you have not read all my subsequent posts which had addressed all the questions you raised above.

But you have still not justified why you think humans have the right to persists on earth.

Who is talking about 'rights' [of absolute objectivity] here.

As I had stated, ALL humans are 'programmed' with sufficient and necessary inherent natures and drives to care for the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

Ebola is programmed to kill humans. That does not give it the right to survive.
You argument is empty pleading.

Note I stated above "ALL humans" why do you bring in Ebola?

That you have not committed suicide despite the pessimisms you have is indication of the implicit 'care' you have exercised to ensure the survival of the species in some ways in accordance to the 'programmed' nature.

That I have not committed suicide is an indication that I enjoy life. That does not give me or any human the right to survive in perpetuity. In fact, as I have already said, the world would be a better place for having no other humans. Or at least from my POV I'd prefer it if there were only less then 1 million.

You are being rhetoric in veering into 'perpetuity'.
Even now, where is your right to live and survive?
Who give you the right to live and survive in this instant?

Where did you get your 'right' to enjoy life? Thus you cannot complain if other make you suffer in life.

If you don't have any right [as the least relative right] then you don't have the 'right' to live, so anyone can kill you at any time and you have no recourse to anything to save your live other than personal self-defense.

There is a minimum critical mass to ensure the human species survive so that the individual[s] can survive and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
Perhaps a minimum of 1 million may be sufficient but I read somewhere, the minimum is much more than that to ensure greater genetic diversity and greater potential for progress and ensuring the survival of the species. [e.g. migrate to another planet].

In this case a group is critical to ensure the survival of the individual[s] and the survival of the individual[s] is critical to the group. In this sense, we are still referring to a species, i.e. the human species.

The point is you cannot survive alone if there is no species [group] to support you as the individual.
If all humans were killed except you alone, will you be able to survive effectively. in contrast with having the whole human species in place.
It is from the above necessary conditions that we can abstract the natural relative [not absolute] rights of each individual to live [not to be killed] and other related 'rights'.

As such the individual[s] should care for the groups [i.e. the species] to ensure its own survival and vice-versa.

[Skepdick]

I don't believe you have thought this one out completely.

Completeness is impossible as new evidence arrives every moment.

Until we're not...

When do you expect this to happen? A lower and upper bound estimate would be useful...

Let have this conversation a few million years hence.

Again - how many is a "few"? An upper and lower bound would be useful (testable).

The dinosaurs were around for +-280 million years and didn't even get to space.

[Belinda]

There were acts of empathy and compassions by specific people or groups in the past, but
it is most effective if we consider the average and the trends within humanity from past to present.

Take slavery for example.
More than 10,000 years ago to the last 100 years, the empathy and compassion of the average person would be very inactive in regard to the enslavement of humans and the tortures and terrible suffering the slaves had to endure.
Re Normal Distribution, there could be a small percentile with active empathy but there is nothing they can do against the majority.

It is only within the last 100 years to the present that the empathy toward slavery is triggered in the majority [or a critical mass] to the extent that at present all sovereign nations has banned and made Chattel Slavery illegal.
This is the evidence that the empathy and compassion potentials are unfolding to be more active in contrast to the past.

One point to note is, the empathy and compassion drive is not something that is universal for everyone. This mean that most people [at present] may empathize in one [all a few] situation but not in all cases. Example, most people may have empathy for slaves at present but may not be for racism, war, bullying, crimes, other pains, etc.

Another point is, blind empathy and compassion, i.e. an over active empathy potential can be counterproductive if not rationalized or optimized. There are many cases of groups of people drowned/killed in trying [voluntarily and spontaneously] to save a drowning dog [or person in need] merely out of blind empathy.

The future of humanity is thus to expedite the unfoldment of the inherent empathy and compassion potentials in ALL [or majority] humans but at the same time ensure their acts of empathy and compassion are done rationally and optimally.

My intuition is to agree but I think I should fight this intuition because I don't want to be complacent, or biased by my personal comfort that I fear to lose.

This is the same as suggesting more of the majority of humans to be educated or be wiser [or improve their personal character] which I don't see why anyone should fear to loose any personal comfort in striving for such gains. On the contrary one may gain more personal comfort[s] with the acquisition of these new traits.

More educated the more I can see another point of view. Whatever the point of view, confirmation bias is a perennial risk to objectivity.

[Sculptor]

The Naturalistic Fallacy [Moore] is full of holes. You should at least counter all its criticisms before pushing for it blindly.

If you want to pick holes, say what they are.
Until then justify why you think your line of argument (naturalistic) is relevant to simplicity's POV'

I have done an in depth research into this, and roughly note;
Criticism of Naturalistic Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalis ... #Criticism

The point is you cannot just throw in your a Natural Fallacy thesis without ensuring you have covered and countered its major objections.

You are clueless.
It is my thesis, it is yours. You are making a naturalistic argument. NOW justify it.

Obviously you have not read all my subsequent posts which had addressed all the questions you raised above.

But you have still not justified why you think humans have the right to persists on earth.

Who is talking about 'rights' [of absolute objectivity] here.

As I had stated, ALL humans are 'programmed' with sufficient and necessary inherent natures and drives to care for the survival of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

Ebola is programmed to kill humans. That does not give it the right to survive.
You argument is empty pleading.

Note I stated above "ALL humans" why do you bring in Ebola?

I bring it in to show how stupid your argument is obviously FFS.

That you have not committed suicide despite the pessimisms you have is indication of the implicit 'care' you have exercised to ensure the survival of the species in some ways in accordance to the 'programmed' nature.

That I have not committed suicide is an indication that I enjoy life. That does not give me or any human the right to survive in perpetuity. In fact, as I have already said, the world would be a better place for having no other humans. Or at least from my POV I'd prefer it if there were only less then 1 million.

You are being rhetoric in veering into 'perpetuity'.
Even now, where is your right to live and survive?
Who give you the right to live and survive in this instant?

Where did you get your 'right' to enjoy life? Thus you cannot complain if other make you suffer in life.

If you don't have any right [as the least relative right] then you don't have the 'right' to live, so anyone can kill you at any time and you have no recourse to anything to save your live other than personal self-defense.

There is a minimum critical mass to ensure the human species survive so that the individual[s] can survive and vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
Perhaps a minimum of 1 million may be sufficient but I read somewhere, the minimum is much more than that to ensure greater genetic diversity and greater potential for progress and ensuring the survival of the species. [e.g. migrate to another planet].

In this case a group is critical to ensure the survival of the individual[s] and the survival of the individual[s] is critical to the group. In this sense, we are still referring to a species, i.e. the human species.

The point is you cannot survive alone if there is no species [group] to support you as the individual.
If all humans were killed except you alone, will you be able to survive effectively. in contrast with having the whole human species in place.
It is from the above necessary conditions that we can abstract the natural relative [not absolute] rights of each individual to live [not to be killed] and other related 'rights'.

As such the individual[s] should care for the groups [i.e. the species] to ensure its own survival and vice-versa.
[/quote]

You are a cluesless twat.
It's no wonder you have convinced no one. Your arguments are empty and you cannot even understand the objections.

[RCSaunders]

So who cares if humanity survives? We'll all be dead in a 100 ...? There is a jolly good set af arguments to suggest that the world would be much better off if there were no humans on it.
I'm all for that.

It's certainly true we'll all be soon dead and nothing will matter after that. Which seems to contradict your second statement of the, "world being better off." Where there is no human to care, nothing matters or is either better or worse, is it? Otherwise it sounds like nature worship or something. I really don't think the world cares.