Hacker News Reader

Comment by phoe-krk | Hacker News Reader

> One obvious objection to neutrality is the threat of extinction. If one couple refuses to have a child, it is neither good nor bad. But if every couple refuses, it is a catastrophe.

If the last human dies and there is no one there to witness it, who is there to claim this a catastrophe?

This article makes a big, implicit assumption about a very human-centric world, which I consider kind of naïve; the universe, including Earth, does not care or need to care about humanity in order to keep on existing. According to all current knowledge, it did just fine before us, and it will likely do just fine after us, even if we do our best to make it inhospitable e.g. via global nuclear warfare.

View on HN

This seems a bit nihilistic, what other sort of universe is there for humans besides a human-centric one? Shouldn't humans indeed pursue human-centric concerns?

I think the mistake is to consider "human" something separate from the rest of the world as opposed to a more holistic point of view.

The fact that we have a somewhat complicated mind capable of abstract thinking doesn't mean we're anything more than bacteria on the grander scale.

The fact that our species has developed all over Earth and became its self-appointed "stewards" doesn't mean that a well-placed asteroid can't turn our "stewardship" into a futile battle for survival.

Dismissal of the result of some billion years of constant adaptation and struggle is also a mistake, IMO.

We are so much more than bacteria, and until proved otherwise, so far we are the smartest beings in the universe.

We will at some point, stop existing as a species.

This doesn't mean everything we do is meaningless.

Eternity and infinity intelligence are not the only measures we can choose to value ourselves, in fact, they smell too much like religion for my personal taste.

What we have is more struggle, more problems to overcome, more challenges and the possibility of succeeding, the possibility of leaving the solar system before the sun dies and kills the earth.

Step by step. Value the small victories. We have reached very far, so far.

From my perspective, you're not identifying an intellectual mistake made by others. You're talking about a difference of values. You don't highly value people being around to observe and participate in the universe, while others care a lot more about this.

What you are saying now is very different from the calculus required to determine if humanities extinction is a catastrophe.

It is one by our point of view, and most humans argue that (a) our point of view is the only one that matters since in the grand aspect we haven’t found any other intelligent point of view, though we theorize they may exist and (b) judging the pain of death as catastrophe is a personal choice, even on Earth we allow people to call the death of their loved ones catastrophic even if other humans continue to go on living blithely unaware of their pain.

There is so much of this downplaying of humans. We are certainly more than bacteria are any reasonable “scale”. We can create transmissions that reach other galaxies, we can split atoms, and even consider ourselves to be equal to bacteria because we conjure vague notions of incomprehensible advanced species. It’s just a very odd kind of self-deprecation.

I don't see much wrong with a peaceful winding down of the population.

This is horrific - what mechanism would you use to accomplish it?

Agreed IFF We start with the ‘bloodlines’.

I think a lot of modern "philosophers" and "religious" people like to think of humans as nothing special and that likely everything would be much better off if we returned to seeking shelter in caves and under lean-tos. I mean it's all relative, but I've only seen a very few ever actually turn their back on modern conveniences or live an ascetic/minimal life.

I think any intelligence persisting forward in time is success. If ai takes over it'll have a much easier time traveling at speed of light. & patience too. Humanity won't need to be slaughtered; microplastics in our balls will make us sterile enough

I would think consciousness, rather than intelligence, is the important component that should persist irrespective of humanity. Intelligence, curiousity, and creativity are important too, but on their own they don't hold moral significance. A universe of computers is not superior to a universe of atoms without something experiencing those abstractions and giving them meaning.

You should watch a ‘scale of the universe’ video.

The idea of a human-centric universe is quite humorous.

Based on this perspective, any argument about improving the lot of a human or humanity wound have to first make the case that it’s rational to care about humans in the first place.

Even if this position seems obvious to you, I respectfully would suggest you consider that most people do not hold extremely nihilistic views like this, and that a lack of nihilism is not naive.

I am willing to defend the parent here. Just because majority follows the urges imposed by their bodies does not automatically mean that everyone does. I personally would posit, that it is that very 'skin in the game' that makes humans create and reframe their very existence not only as something worthwhile, but also desirable to the world at large ( and even the universe in general ). In a very real sense, the universe simply cannot cannot care for us. It is not an anthropomorphic entity. It has no feelings, hopes or dreams. After we will inevitably end ( as likely many before us ), it will not change just because of it. It will have just been.

From that perspective, it is hard to argue that is not accurate. And if it is accurate, then positions contrary to it are not accurate and therefore naive.

The whole idea of measuring the value of different universe states in an objective way seems irrelevant to me. Most people care about surviving because it is subjectively valuable to them. Very few humans shoehorn themselves into a "view from nowhere" and attempt to derive from it some kind of lessons for how humanity should think about itself.

It's one way I guess, but there's no reason to prefer it, and it's not popular for obvious reasons.

Humans have feelings, hopes, and dreams. Humans are a subset of the universe. Therefore, the universe has feelings, hopes, and dreams.

Now that the universe has manifested we conscious agents of its matter, how dare we squander this gift? Just because it didn't come with an instruction manual? We will find our own purpose.

Does the universe enjoy having feelings, hopes, and dreams? This kind of thinking is anthropocentric and doesn't generalize to any scale. Consider cancer cells thinking that their goal (growth) is good for the organism, because, after all, they are part of it.

As a tiny representative of the universe, yes I do enjoy having feelings, hopes, and dreams. If nihilists find this to be meaningless, perhaps we simply disagree about which of us is the cancer.

It it is an interesting conversation to me even if it moves into a philosophical realm, where I have little to no experience. Why would we think of ourselves as the representatives of the universe, whereas we are closer to resembling atoms at the scales involved ( and even that seems to embellish our relative size ). Does having feelings, hopes and dreams bestows the status of an envoy? Nihilists do not see things as meaningless, which may carry negative connotations ( 'the cancer part' ). Rather, things are devoid of meaning. Nihilists recognize that meaning is not inherent, but rather ascribed by the person experiencing the feeling.

I will admit that I chuckled at the cancer comparison. How does the universe consider, which cells are 'good'?

If you show a skyscraper to an ant, should he abandon his queen because their little hill is too insignificant to matter? Or should he jump back in and build the best damn nest in the city? I just don't think relative scale is really important - even a galaxy-striding star-snacking titan would grapple with the same problem of meaning.

> Nihilists recognize that meaning is not inherent, but rather ascribed by the person experiencing the feeling.

That sounds reasonable, so here's an attempt at a synthesis. The universe is huge and mostly empty, but here we have a tiny patch full of life and self-ascribed meaning. Does the universe prefer life? The part that's alive certainly does! So don't let it fall to ashes just to appease the void. I think that's the best answer a mere mortal can give.

> If the last human dies and there is no one there to witness it, who is there to claim this a catastrophe?

This is an interesting question, and the answer one gives is highly dependent upon their worldview and beliefs.

From a Christian perspective (on which most of the Western world was based), the earth was given to humans along with an explicit decree to have children and "subdue" it and everything on it ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1%3A28&... ). Therefore in the Christian worldview, Earth is pretty explicitly defined as human-centric, and human life is considered above all else on this Earth.

I don't believe a single translated passage in the Old Testament book of Genesis captures the entirety of the Christian worldview on this particular subject.

> [...] the universe, including Earth, does not care or need to care about humanity in order to keep on existing.

This objection is technically correct, but misses the point completely. It's irrelevant whether "the universe" cares – all that matters to humanity is whether humans care. And they do care about the survival of their species.

Imagine Earth has the only living things in the knowable universe. And then it all dies, for some reason. To me that seems like a waste of a perfectly good universe.

A universe without a conscious observer seems kind of pointless to me.

Why does it need to have a point? You and I will die, humanity will one day end and later so will the universe, so there isn't really any point to anything.

Planet Earth being the only place containing intelligent life in the entire universe is extremely unlikely, statistically speaking.

We only have a single data point in the entire observable universe so far.

It's not enough to talk about any meaningful statistics.

You don’t have reference for that. You have no experience of any other universes and no other examples in this one.

See the drake equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-aliens-a...

The Drake equation is not a serious thing.

Please elaborate, this is crossing over into strangely absurd territory. What model are you using to reason about and evaluate the question of life throughout the Universe? Or, what makes Earth such a special environment that there could only ever be one such place, and no other planets also meeting similar criteria supportive of life? There are nearly innumerable other chances for this to exist throughout the vastness of the Universe. Our human brains can't truly grasp the scale, it's far beyond what we encounter in day to day life. I'll take those odds.

It is well known that the Drake Equation is not a serious thing. The history of it was that it was basically a conversation starter. There may be documentaries that likened it to something more solid like Standard Model, but that’s not the case. It’s a hurried back of the envelope pop-culture math-y thing that is full of vague uncertainties. We have a non-random sample of one. How can you estimate anything based on that? You can look this up; the Drake Equation is not considered something really serious, downvotes aside.

what even is humanity's point? Consciousness is quite the curse. Existence is itself absurd. No human being present would mean no existential dread atleast.

There's also the proposition of Antinatalism [1] / The Case for Not Being Born [2] - about the only sure way to guarantee the absolute absence of pain / discomfort. Where one David Benatar argues that we shouldn't feel pity for the missed pleasure / happiness / meaning of somebody that isn't born / doesn't exist, vs the inevitable pain that any human is bound to suffer at some point.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism [2] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-ca...

> If the last human dies and there is no one there to witness it, who is there to claim this a catastrophe?

I would care. As a human (as a living organism, really), I have children because I hope they outlive me (that's not the only reason!). In a way, they are what's left of me when I'm dead. And my grandchildren when my children are dead. So, yes, I would be sad if my children choose to not have any children themselves, and I would consider it a catastrophe if the hypothesis that a whole generation stopped having kids materialized.

But if your children's children's children decide not to have kids then you'll already be gone so you won't care. We can talk about worry about the future without us while we're still alive but once we're dead it's kind of immaterial what we wanted.

It is a catastrophe for the humanity by the very definition of catastrophe. I love this gung-ho nihilism as much as the next person but come on. No one thinks a supernova 80 million light years from Earth will be sad but of course it is a human-centric view as it is expressed by humans, who for all we know are the only advanced intelligent beings in the universe.

When the universe ends, then everything will be dead and nothing and no one will care. Therefore, the entire field of philosophy is solved, all everything has zero worth, and so any regard to if things should live or die is meaningless.

I would go even further: I consider “earth” as the rock all the living stuff is on top of. So even if it would become a bare rock it would not care. It’s just a rock.

It’s a figure of speech

The universe doesn't care, but this is a discussion among humans.

I appreciate the effort to keep an open mind, but you can have too much of everything :)

Do you think there are intelligent lifeforms out there in the universe?

Sure, the universe seems infinite enough both in time and space. Assuming that laws of statistics hold, there should be other areas where there's optimum for life as we know it to develop - even if we won't get to meet it because we miss it by a few millions or billions of years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com