The species vs infinity

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-24 09:10am

2 situations for moral consideration:

1) There is some imminent threat to all life on Earth and the universe. You can stop this cataclysm happening to either the Earth or the rest of the universe but not both. The rest of the universe is known by this point to be teeming with intelligent and unintelligent life with many civilisations roughly equivalent to Earth. Is it more moral to look after the survival of our species at the cost of all others?

2) The cataclysm, it turns out, reverberates throughout reality, and can destroy either our universe or all parallel worlds but ours. This means you can decide to kill trillions upon trillions of alternate universes complete with humans and sapient aliens or this one. Would it be better to ensure our own survival instead of theirs?

What would you do in both of these situations, in addition to explaining what you think should be done.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-24 09:18am

What the hell is with all of these Devil's Choice threads? What possible kind of cataclysm could this be? Is it some random godling who's decided to be extra-sadistic this week?

Yes, to both questions. I'd hate myself for it, and probably have mental issues if I somehow survived, but yes. The sacrifice of one planet for a universe or one universe for an infinity of universes is the ethical choice.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-24 09:22am

Molyneux wrote:What the hell is with all of these Devil's Choice threads?

Well, morality for humans is meant to be about the species' survival, both of these issues deal with the opposite as the apparently more ethical choice, and so we have a conflict of interest.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-24 10:24am

Rye wrote:
Molyneux wrote:What the hell is with all of these Devil's Choice threads?
Well, morality for humans is meant to be about the species' survival, both of these issues deal with the opposite as the apparently more ethical choice, and so we have a conflict of interest.

I think that morality for humans is supposed to be more about the survival of morality itself, in the same way that standard evolution functions to increase the survival of genes (any benefit to the creature itself being a byproduct).

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2007-02-24 10:50am

Rye wrote:Well, morality for humans is meant to be about the species' survival...

What? Survival is instinctual, and is supported by such things as lying, stealing, murder - all immoral actions. Unless I misunderstand your meaning.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-02-24 11:20am

Magus wrote:
Rye wrote:Well, morality for humans is meant to be about the species' survival...
What? Survival is instinctual, and is supported by such things as lying, stealing, murder - all immoral actions. Unless I misunderstand your meaning.

Where do you think morality comes from? What do you think its purpose is?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-02-24 12:34pm

Altruism is also a by-product of our evolutionary journey, so much so, that it is seen as a necessity by all humans, faith or no faith and from various ethnicities. It is something that most certainly did not come from scripture or the like, though, naturally, we do get extremes where stealing or cheating is chosen over the more moral option.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2007-02-24 01:14pm

Rye wrote:
Magus wrote: What? Survival is instinctual, and is supported by such things as lying, stealing, murder - all immoral actions. Unless I misunderstand your meaning.
Where do you think morality comes from? What do you think its purpose is?

I don't deny that morality progressed from the desire to make sure one's self and one's family survived to propogate the species. Eventually, I would say that that impulse expanded to the point where everyone in the world is deserving of good treatment (barring obvious enemies). However, I would say that the current general idea of morality has extended above and beyond the scope of what is hardwired into our brains.

We have the Geneva Convention, which advocates the moral treatment of even the most worthless scum of the earth. We give welfare checks even to those who do not contribute to society. If a man tried to kill me, I probably would not use lethal force on him, even though I might loathe him with all my being. These are things which fly in the face of instinct and/or the species' survival.

In short, I believe that morality has trancended the instinctual desire to propagate the species, and has developed an intellectual/philisophical aspect that, at times, directly opposes the survival of the species.

Tasoth · Post by **Tasoth** » 2007-02-24 04:00pm

So what type of cataclysm are we talking about for the end of the rest of the universe? Big explosions, mass death from plague/subspace phenomenon(: D)? If it is the destruction of every solar sytem out there except for ours, then we'd be fucked anyways. So let the universe die with us. If it's some bizarre plague, still, fuck the rest of the universe, we can use the space. Immoral? Yes, very much so, but natural? Undoubtedly, because we just got a whole slew of territory and resources without having to out compete rivaling species.

As for the other one, I have to choose between my life or the teeming trillions who only exist to me as a thought and realization? Well, then I choose me of course. Sorry parallel universes, but I come before you in the scheme of things because I can touch myself.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-24 04:16pm

The big question is, in this scenario, do I learn FTL travel is quite possible?

If so, Humanity wins, hands down. We will eventually expand to replace all the lost civilizations (one would hope), and while a great loss, we have lots more room now.

If there is no FTL, then humanity gets boned. If we can't expand, then there is no point destroying the universe just to spare 1 planet

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-24 10:39pm

Solauren wrote:The big question is, in this scenario, do I learn FTL travel is quite possible?

If so, Humanity wins, hands down. We will eventually expand to replace all the lost civilizations (one would hope), and while a great loss, we have lots more room now.

If there is no FTL, then humanity gets boned. If we can't expand, then there is no point destroying the universe just to spare 1 planet

You would kill untold umpteen-illions of innocent, sentient beings just for a few billion humans?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-02-25 01:07am

The mere existence of this threat has huge implications, none of them good for Terra Prime and the significance thereof. Utility alone dictates that our timeline buys it. I couldn't justify sparing our universe, let alone our planet.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2007-02-25 03:43am

I believe the survival of my species is more important then the survival of any other. Better that all sentient non-human life is exterminated then life here.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-25 09:14am

Molyneux wrote:
Solauren wrote:The big question is, in this scenario, do I learn FTL travel is quite possible?

If so, Humanity wins, hands down. We will eventually expand to replace all the lost civilizations (one would hope), and while a great loss, we have lots more room now.

If there is no FTL, then humanity gets boned. If we can't expand, then there is no point destroying the universe just to spare 1 planet
You would kill untold umpteen-illions of innocent, sentient beings just for a few billion humans?

If FTL is possible, YES

I've never meet or interacted with any of these innocents. How do I know they are not a horde of psychotic genocidal barbarians? Or the real life, competent version of the Borg or something?

Sorry, better the devil you know

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-25 10:20am

Solauren wrote:I've never meet or interacted with any of these innocents. How do I know they are not a horde of psychotic genocidal barbarians? Or the real life, competent version of the Borg or something?

Maybe because the OP says that many of the civilizations you're condemning are "roughly equivalent to Earth"?

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-25 10:36am

That could mean just about anything. Roughly equal to earth in what way? Every way? Technologically? Population?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-25 12:41pm

Solauren wrote:That could mean just about anything. Roughly equal to earth in what way? Every way? Technologically? Population?

If it's not specified, then doesn't it make more sense to assume "Roughly equivalent in every way"?

dworkin · Post by **dworkin** » 2007-02-25 12:51pm

Molyneux wrote:If it's not specified, then doesn't it make more sense to assume "Roughly equivalent in every way"?

Does this mean that by allowing the rest of the universe to go boom I'm ridding it of infinite versions of Reality TV, fan fiction and Carrot Top?

Where's the switch?

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-25 02:03pm

Molyneux wrote:
Solauren wrote:That could mean just about anything. Roughly equal to earth in what way? Every way? Technologically? Population?
If it's not specified, then doesn't it make more sense to assume "Roughly equivalent in every way"?

In that case, there's nothing special about the rest of the universe, compared to this world.

This world is special, CAUSE I'M ON IT.

Therefore, the rest of reality gets to die, so my species can thrive and multiply.

But, please remember, if FTL is not possible, then I will give up this world for the rest. But if it is, great, more breathing room!

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-25 04:26pm

Solauren wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Solauren wrote:That could mean just about anything. Roughly equal to earth in what way? Every way? Technologically? Population?
If it's not specified, then doesn't it make more sense to assume "Roughly equivalent in every way"?
In that case, there's nothing special about the rest of the universe, compared to this world.

This world is special, CAUSE I'M ON IT.

Therefore, the rest of reality gets to die, so my species can thrive and multiply.

But, please remember, if FTL is not possible, then I will give up this world for the rest. But if it is, great, more breathing room!

You are truly a horrifying person. So if it was a question of killing everyone else on Earth so that the city you live in could survive, you'd pull the switch then as well?

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2007-02-25 05:11pm

Molyneux wrote:
Solauren wrote: In that case, there's nothing special about the rest of the universe, compared to this world.

This world is special, CAUSE I'M ON IT.

Therefore, the rest of reality gets to die, so my species can thrive and multiply.

But, please remember, if FTL is not possible, then I will give up this world for the rest. But if it is, great, more breathing room!
You are truly a horrifying person. So if it was a question of killing everyone else on Earth so that the city you live in could survive, you'd pull the switch then as well?

While I would make the same decision as Solauren in the two situations listed in the OP (for mostly the same reason), I'd say that that in your situation I'd let my city die, for the reason that the world can survive without my city, but my city can't survive without the world.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-25 11:04pm

MariusRoi wrote:
Molyneux wrote:
Solauren wrote: In that case, there's nothing special about the rest of the universe, compared to this world.

This world is special, CAUSE I'M ON IT.

Therefore, the rest of reality gets to die, so my species can thrive and multiply.

But, please remember, if FTL is not possible, then I will give up this world for the rest. But if it is, great, more breathing room!
You are truly a horrifying person. So if it was a question of killing everyone else on Earth so that the city you live in could survive, you'd pull the switch then as well?

While I would make the same decision as Solauren in the two situations listed in the OP (for mostly the same reason), I'd say that that in your situation I'd let my city die, for the reason that the world can survive without my city, but my city can't survive without the world.

Agreed.

When it comes down to within Species, the greater number wins.

However, when it comes down to My Species expanding out and thriving onto other worlds, other species are Shit Out of Luck.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-26 12:55am

Solauren wrote:
MariusRoi wrote:
Molyneux wrote: You are truly a horrifying person. So if it was a question of killing everyone else on Earth so that the city you live in could survive, you'd pull the switch then as well?

While I would make the same decision as Solauren in the two situations listed in the OP (for mostly the same reason), I'd say that that in your situation I'd let my city die, for the reason that the world can survive without my city, but my city can't survive without the world.
Agreed.

When it comes down to within Species, the greater number wins.

However, when it comes down to My Species expanding out and thriving onto other worlds, other species are Shit Out of Luck.

I repeat: You are truly a horrifying person. I hope I never have to rely on you for anything ethics-based.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2007-02-26 07:17am

So, you're saying that you'd override what could be viewed as cosmic scale natural selection based on your own emotional need?

I hope I never have to rely on you to make any kind of logical or governmental decision what so ever.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2007-02-26 07:36am

Solauren wrote:So, you're saying that you'd override what could be viewed as cosmic scale natural selection based on your own emotional need?

Since when was natural selection a moral principle ? Since when did interfering with natural selection become undesirable ?

Solauren wrote:I hope I never have to rely on you to make any kind of logical or governmental decision what so ever.

So you'd prefer someone in office who has the same "To hell with everything but me and mine" attitude you have ? Don't you realize that at some point someone like that is likely to run roughshod over you just like they would everybody else ?

Your attitude is the sort held by people who never expect to be on the wrong end of it. If some aliens showed up and started slaughtering humanity, and explained their action by saying "great, more breathing room!" and "when it comes down to My Species expanding out and thriving onto other worlds, other species are Shit Out of Luck.", I doubt you'd appreciate the turnabout.