Sign away the future of humanity for a good time now?

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 03:13 AM

Here's a little thought experiment:

You are offered an anonymous "sign away the future of humanity for a good time now" type of deal by an extremely powerful and convincing entity. If you agree then you can be absolutely certain that what is promised will happen. The decision is yours alone and afterwards neither you nor anybody else (human at least!) will have any memory or other record of any kind of the offer or the choice you made.

Will you take the deal or not?

If you agree to the offer then the promise is that all humans currently alive and also those in the following few generations will benefit from unspecified (but very significant and broadly desirable) improvements across all aspects of their individual and collective lives. However these "good times" only continue until "payback time" is reached at some random point in the future, say between 500 and 1000 years from when the deal was done. At that time all human existence will be instantaneously and painlessly ended without any warning. Humanity ceases to exist from that point onwards.

To be clear, lifespans may possibly increase significantly during the "good times" but not so much that any person alive today nor any of their immediate descendants will be alive at "payback time".

If you don't agree to the offer then life will go on without any further interference or interaction from the entity offering the deal.

I am not a lawyer, but hopefully this all is clear enough.

If necessary, use your own imagination to decide exactly what constitutes "good times" for yourself and others - but still something reasonably realistic. Perhaps world peace, a significant reduction in suffering and disease, lots of stuff just working out well at the individual level, good weather, lots of fun and friends, etc. We can take it that the entity offering this deal knows what you like and want to happen.

The point (hopefully) is not to debate the precise details of this relatively short term nirvana but to share whether you would or would not take the deal, and why.

How much should we care about people not yet born and their future potential if we can improve our lot in the here and now?

Marduk · 3rd December 2010, 03:19 AM

its been done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film))

Matt the Poet · 3rd December 2010, 06:34 AM

It's being done

http://www.realclimate.org

Beerina · 3rd December 2010, 08:00 AM

If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, I submit the technology 500-1000 years from now won't even notice problems caused by rising oceans or whatever. Especially at the slow rate of centuries, which won't even bother our tech level now.

"Oh, look. Those buildings people built a hundred years ago are being encroached by water. Well, let's just build the new ones further back."

Aepervius · 3rd December 2010, 08:36 AM

I would take the deal , but only because I am a selfish bastard without children.

Aepervius · 3rd December 2010, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, I submit the technology 500-1000 years from now won't even notice problems caused by rising oceans or whatever. Especially at the slow rate of centuries, which won't even bother our tech level now.

"Oh, look. Those buildings people built a hundred years ago are being encroached by water. Well, let's just build the new ones further back."

That ignore a few points, like agrare area potentially shifting from place where they are now. But anyway, as per my post above, I don't really care.

bluesjnr · 3rd December 2010, 08:45 AM

I would not be interested in your deal. The Human race may achieve the ideals set out in the initial "deal" in any case without my intervention.

If you have any decent deals that will significantly improve my life only and will do so without dooming the Human race at some point in the future, get back to me.

SumDood · 3rd December 2010, 09:06 AM

I would pass on the deal, its just morally icky to me. The extended life span would be tempting, though.

Drachasor · 3rd December 2010, 09:54 AM

Never make weird deals like that with entities. There's no normally sensible reason they'd be restricted that way, so it means something really weird is going on and you don't have all the facts.

Though, if I had the magic power to do that, it would only be a good idea if humanity wasn't going to survive longer than that anyhow, but you'd have to know that for certain in advance before any such deal.

Trent Wray · 3rd December 2010, 11:12 AM

I wouldn't make the deal because two or more people could never agree on what "good times are" and I seriously doubt it would be possible for all of us who accept the deal to be able to interract and have our good times, all the time, as we see fit.

Human's don't get along, with or without entities.

Plus, we always change our minds on what "good times are." What is a good time to me today, will change ten years from now. And sometimes, my pleasure will be at the expense of other's pain.

It's too complicated .... even with just ONE person and ONE entity. We disagree with even ourselves because we are ultra selfish at our core, and unfortunately we are both aware and unaware of it at the same time.

Drachasor · 3rd December 2010, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

we are ultra selfish at our core

Not true, and in fact psychological studies as well as ones for the brain indicate we actually have a significant amount of machinery for empathy that we regularly use. People with this machinery broken come in various types, sociopaths is one of them.

Mark6 · 3rd December 2010, 11:16 AM

I would not take the offer.

For a very simple reason -- how do I know this entity is not lying?

patchbunny · 3rd December 2010, 11:23 AM

Did Ardra escape from prison or something?

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

its been done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film))

That's a nasty twist!

Originally Posted by Beerina

If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, <snip>

That was not my intention.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I would take the deal , but only because I am a selfish bastard without children.

Great. Flushing out selfish bastards is one of my goals.

If you had (or end up having) children do you think would change your point of view much?

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Never make weird deals like that with entities. There's no normally sensible reason they'd be restricted that way, so it means something really weird is going on and you don't have all the facts.

It's only meant to be a thought experiment with the intention of exploring what kind of "value" people might put on the as yet unborn future generations. If "entity" sounds too much like you-know-who then feel free to replace by "alien" or another alternative if that sits more comfortably with you.

What I'm trying to find out is how much you might care (or not) about the existence (in a platonic sense) of yet unborn people whose lives and deaths are (for the purposes of this discussion) not going to have any direct effect on ourselves.

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Though, if I had the magic power to do that, it would only be a good idea if humanity wasn't going to survive longer than that anyhow, but you'd have to know that for certain in advance before any such deal.

If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go?

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

I wouldn't make the deal because two or more people could never agree on what "good times are" and I seriously doubt it would be possible for all of us who accept the deal to be able to interract and have our good times, all the time, as we see fit.

The entity decides, and nobody will know that "anything special" is going on (except by looking at the probably rather mysterious changes in various statistical data I guess). The idea (in the thought experiment) is that entity will know what is "good" for all of us, both collectively and individually. Obviously there will be some conflicts which you can assume for the sake of this discussion will be resolved in some reasonable way. It's not meant to be "heaven on earth", but for example, if I took the deal I personally wouldn't expect to die from a long and painful cancer. However I'm still going to die, and there will presumably still be rainy days...

Originally Posted by Mark6

I would not take the offer.

For a very simple reason -- how do I know this entity is not lying?

Because that is a premise - the entity is guaranteed to be completely trustworthy. Yeah, it may be difficult to accept something like that but this is only a thought experiment after all. Suspend your disbelief!

Originally Posted by patchbunny

Did Ardra escape from prison or something?

I wasn't familiar with Ardra until reading your link but yes, it sounds a lot like her!

Drachasor · 3rd December 2010, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Clive

If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go?

It certainly seems like a worthwhile deal to take if the expected lifespan of humanity is for the same amount of time or less. That said, I don't see how I could tell what the expected lifespan of humanity was. I have no idea what technology we'll have in the future. It might be possible we could survive the heat death of this universe by traveling to another universe or something.

Mark6 · 3rd December 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Clive

That's a nasty twist!

Basically, another variation on Perverted Wishes trope.

Originally Posted by Clive

Because that is a premise - the entity is guaranteed to be completely trustworthy. Yeah, it may be difficult to accept something like that but this is only a thought experiment after all. Suspend your disbelief!

I won't.

When confronted with this sort of thought experiment, I will ONLY answer as if it were real-life situation. As in:

Q: If you were stuck on a deserted island with one person, who would you want it to be?

A: Someone who knows how to distill seawater, and otherwise skilled in wilderness survival. If you insist on a name, I know a few people like that.

If you think this defeats the purpose of thought experiment -- too bad. That's my answer.

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

It certainly seems like a worthwhile deal to take if the expected lifespan of humanity is for the same amount of time or less. That said, I don't see how I could tell what the expected lifespan of humanity was. I have no idea what technology we'll have in the future. It might be possible we could survive the heat death of this universe by traveling to another universe or something.

I don't know what's going to happen in the distant future either, but at least this deal means it's going to be much better than you might otherwise expect for the next little while at least and 5 billion years is a fairly generous "next little while"! We may even have evolved into something too horrendous to contemplate at that point in time in which case our destruction may be "just what the universe needs". Really, why should we care at all about what happens in the distant future?

Drachasor · 3rd December 2010, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Clive

I don't know what's going to happen in the distant future either, but at least this deal means it's going to be much better than you might otherwise expect for the next little while at least and 5 billion years is a fairly generous "next little while"! We may even have evolved into something too horrendous to contemplate at that point in time in which case our destruction may be "just what the universe needs". Really, why should we care at all about what happens in the distant future?

The "next little while" is a very short time indeed. It certainly isn't longer than 50 years. After that the not knowing what is going to happen really kicks in. And there's no objective reason to value your happiness or those around for the next little while more than those in the future or far, far future.

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I won't.

Fair enough.

Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share?

Trent Wray · 3rd December 2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Not true, and in fact psychological studies as well as ones for the brain indicate we actually have a significant amount of machinery for empathy that we regularly use. People with this machinery broken come in various types, sociopaths is one of them.

Yes but empathy is also selfish. We serve our own ends through empathy all the time. Even sacrificial heroes can be serving their own ego's by their actions, etc. I have looked down the barrel of guns and been a human shield several times .... some of those times were purely to feed my own ego or the ability to respond from training and detachment from the reality of possibly dying. Other times I would have been willing to give my life, however, I wouldn't have been willing to be tortured for example.

In general ,.... imho ..... we are selfish to the core ultimately when suffering is the bottom line. We don't like to suffer. We make calculated risks in regards to suffering, but even when faced with death, we generally hope death will be swift and free of personal suffering. So even in our empathy, we generally will draw the line at various forms of suffering, thus revealing our empathy and "altruisim" often has a price.

Now, obviously there are a few individuals who will suffer great pain for the sake of others, or ideals, or causes, etc. But overall, people act on their own best interests for their own gain, and "pure" sacrifices are RARE. Again, IMHO

Originally Posted by Clive

Fair enough.

Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share?

lol

SumDood · 3rd December 2010, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Clive

If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go?

That is an interesting twist. It shouldn't make a difference morally if I'm killing humanity in 500 years or 5 billion, but I must admit that I'd be more open to the offer. I think its partly because 5 billion years is such a mind bogglingly large amount of time. I might even consider as low as one million. One million years of happiness and prosperity. I'd have to think about it.

TubbaBlubba · 3rd December 2010, 12:41 PM

I wouldn't offer the deal in the first place.

phantomb · 3rd December 2010, 12:43 PM

I wouldn't want to be one of the guys when it comes time for the "payback", so I wouldn't take this deal and do that to an entire generation of people down the line.

Drachasor · 3rd December 2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Yes but empathy is also selfish. We serve our own ends through empathy all the time. Even sacrificial heroes can be serving their own ego's by their actions, etc. I have looked down the barrel of guns and been a human shield several times .... some of those times were purely to feed my own ego or the ability to respond from training and detachment from the reality of possibly dying. Other times I would have been willing to give my life, however, I wouldn't have been willing to be tortured for example.

In general ,.... imho ..... we are selfish to the core ultimately when suffering is the bottom line. We don't like to suffer. We make calculated risks in regards to suffering, but even when faced with death, we generally hope death will be swift and free of personal suffering. So even in our empathy, we generally will draw the line at various forms of suffering, thus revealing our empathy and "altruisim" often has a price.

Now, obviously there are a few individuals who will suffer great pain for the sake of others, or ideals, or causes, etc. But overall, people act on their own best interests for their own gain, and "pure" sacrifices are RARE. Again, IMHO

A guy sacrifices his life to save some homeless beggars?
"Oh, he's just did it for his ego, the selfish bastard!"

You have successfully defined "selfish" so that it doesn't really mean anything. Congrats?

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by phantomb

I wouldn't want to be one of the guys when it comes time for the "payback", so I wouldn't take this deal and do that to an entire generation of people down the line.

I also don't really like the idea of dying any earlier than needed but that doesn't seem rational. Why should we really have any fear or worry of dying if that will happen without any warning, instantaneously, painlessly, and also at the same time as everybody else that could possibly still be around to care?

Hmm. I've just realised that I overlooked the welfare needs of pets, and other animals possibly locked in cages at zoos, etc.! If this bothers you also then please add an extra clause to your contract as required. Please accept my apologies for the oversight.

Clive · 3rd December 2010, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

I wouldn't offer the deal in the first place.

Sometimes I fantasize that I will wake up one morning, find everything is back to front, and I really am evil. See?

Mark6 · 3rd December 2010, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Clive

Fair enough.

Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share?

Not on this thread, no.

Trent Wray · 4th December 2010, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

A guy sacrifices his life to save some homeless beggars?
"Oh, he's just did it for his ego, the selfish bastard!"

You have successfully defined "selfish" so that it doesn't really mean anything. Congrats?

What?

How am I defining it so that it doesn't mean anything? It's a neutral term in the sense I'm using it ..... plus I'm using it to describe someone who is serving their own ends. Hence .... selfish.

And yes ..... a guy sacrifices his life .... a one time act ..... for some homeless beggars and it could be serving his own ends. Perhaps his ego. Or his sense of pride and accomplishment. Perhaps he feels as though he is being loving by doing so ..... a hero in his final moments. Perhaps he's been looking many years for a reason to die for a cause or a person who isn't able to pay him back. His motive could ultimately be to serve his own ideals ... which are pleasing to him on some level. HIS CHOICE.

And I wasn't making a blanket statement ..... it's why I made the rest of my post the way I did with qualifiers

Now, if he's caught unknowingly in gunfire or something, then he's a VICTIM. Perhaps he didn't choose to give his life .... perhaps the choice was made for him. It is therefore unforseen and not something that would be selfish. He's a victim. But if he's willingly choosing to sacrifice his life then yes .... he's choosing to do what he wants for whatever his reasons are. It's selfish.

So I don't get your bottom line unless you're just picking my statement apart for some alterior motive you might have ......

Drachasor · 4th December 2010, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

What?

How am I defining it so that it doesn't mean anything? It's a neutral term in the sense I'm using it ..... plus I'm using it to describe someone who is serving their own ends. Hence .... selfish.

And yes ..... a guy sacrifices his life .... a one time act ..... for some homeless beggars and it could be serving his own ends. Perhaps his ego. Or his sense of pride and accomplishment. Perhaps he feels as though he is being loving by doing so ..... a hero in his final moments. Perhaps he's been looking many years for a reason to die for a cause or a person who isn't able to pay him back. His motive could ultimately be to serve his own ideals ... which are pleasing to him on some level. HIS CHOICE.

And I wasn't making a blanket statement ..... it's why I made the rest of my post the way I did with qualifiers

Now, if he's caught unknowingly in gunfire or something, then he's a VICTIM. Perhaps he didn't choose to give his life .... perhaps the choice was made for him. It is therefore unforseen and not something that would be selfish. He's a victim. But if he's willingly choosing to sacrifice his life then yes .... he's choosing to do what he wants for whatever his reasons are. It's selfish.

So I don't get your bottom line unless you're just picking my statement apart for some alterior motive you might have ......

You've defined it so every action is selfish. Hence it doesn't mean anything. Might as well just say "people act" because you've defined selfishness so there's no distinction.

It's a completely useless definition. And yeah, the rare people who do this irk me when they bring it up because really it is an attack on the idea of altruism and it is a LAME attack.

Let's look at how selfishness is actually used:

1
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2
: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3
: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>

Ok, now let's look.

1) Is the guy sacrificing himself excessively or exclusively concerned with himself? I don't see how. He's acting with great regard for others. Same with the person who donates silently to charity or the like.

2) Again, no disregard for others. Also, like with 1) people that sacrifice of themselves for others are not overly concerned with their own welfare. It is in fact just the opposite.

3) Well..I don't think that's applicable here.

So what you have done is make up a ridiculous definition for "selfish" that no one would ever use, doesn't help describing anything, goes against what people mean by the word, and just generally isn't good for anything. No offense.

psionl0 · 4th December 2010, 12:50 AM

"Caveat Emptor"
"The devil is in the details"
"The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away"
(other cliques)

catsmate1 · 4th December 2010, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

its been done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film))

The original Twilight Zone episode was far batter, the film dragged out the idea too far.

And no I wouldn't take the deal.

Barney Gumble · 4th December 2010, 04:02 AM

No deal,

Too vague of a concept, and this entity assumes I and those around me have lives that are so terrible that we would be willing to condemn future generations for some better times now.

Trent Wray · 4th December 2010, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

You've defined it so every action is selfish. Hence it doesn't mean anything. Might as well just say "people act" because you've defined selfishness so there's no distinction.

It's a completely useless definition. And yeah, the rare people who do this irk me when they bring it up because really it is an attack on the idea of altruism and it is a LAME attack.

Let's look at how selfishness is actually used:

1
: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2
: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
3
: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>

Ok, now let's look.

1) Is the guy sacrificing himself excessively or exclusively concerned with himself? I don't see how. He's acting with great regard for others. Same with the person who donates silently to charity or the like.

2) Again, no disregard for others. Also, like with 1) people that sacrifice of themselves for others are not overly concerned with their own welfare. It is in fact just the opposite.

3) Well..I don't think that's applicable here.

So what you have done is make up a ridiculous definition for "selfish" that no one would ever use, doesn't help describing anything, goes against what people mean by the word, and just generally isn't good for anything. No offense.

Yeah I can see my opinion irks you .... and while you are exhibiting subversive adhom arguments and taking a few bits and pieces of what I've said out of context and ignoring the rest .... I'm still trying to get passed that you used the word "lame" against me in this conversation

Which basically makes you and I's conversation stop here ..... cuz you are so defensive there is no point to continuing it ... we'll go nowhere except the JREF "I'm right, no I'm right," circuit, which is the most annoying part of this (or any) forum. Sometimes lol

Drachasor · 4th December 2010, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Trent Wray

Yeah I can see my opinion irks you .... and while you are exhibiting subversive adhom arguments and taking a few bits and pieces of what I've said out of context and ignoring the rest .... I'm still trying to get passed that you used the word "lame" against me in this conversation

Which basically makes you and I's conversation stop here ..... cuz you are so defensive there is no point to continuing it ... we'll go nowhere except the JREF "I'm right, no I'm right," circuit, which is the most annoying part of this (or any) forum. Sometimes lol

I've hardly made an ad hominem attack. I only was proving my case that your definition of "selfish" is not useful and is not remotely what people mean when they use the word.

Might as well define "selfish" as "least action" and now everything in nature, intelligent or not, is selfish.

slingblade · 4th December 2010, 12:44 PM

I wouldn't do it, because I am selfish.

I don't want the responsibility.

FattyCatty · 4th December 2010, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

I would not be interested in your deal. The Human race may achieve the ideals set out in the initial "deal" in any case without my intervention.

If you have any decent deals that will significantly improve my life only and will do so without dooming the Human race at some point in the future, get back to me.

cc me, please.

Originally Posted by phantomb

I wouldn't want to be one of the guys when it comes time for the "payback", so I wouldn't take this deal and do that to an entire generation of people down the line.

I wouldn't take the deal either, partly for this reason, partly because it feels evil to contemplate harming someone else for personal gain.

[tangent]And think of all the pets, zoos, domestic animals, etc., as were mentioned. I don't see how adding a rider to the deal would help. To what extent have domesticated animals been changed? Would they still have the ability to survive on their own in a humanless world? I don't see domesticated Angora rabbits doing well on their own, for instance.[/tangent]

Clive · 4th December 2010, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

I would not be interested in your deal. The Human race may achieve the ideals set out in the initial "deal" in any case without my intervention.

I would suggest this is almost certainly not going to happen in our lifetimes or even that of our children or grandchildren. I think you must have a much more optimistic outlook for the future than I do if you think that is likely to happen.

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

If you have any decent deals that will significantly improve my life only and will do so without dooming the Human race at some point in the future, get back to me.

Many would argue that the human race is "doomed" if you look far enough into the future anyway. "Humans" haven't been around very long in evolutionary terms and nobody knows what we will evolve into or even if there will be any surviving direct descendants at all in the longer term. Shouldn't we "party while we can"?

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

cc me, please.

See above.

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I wouldn't take the deal either, partly for this reason, partly because it feels evil to contemplate harming someone else for personal gain.

I understand that it might feel evil. But is it really evil? After all, these people don't exist yet - they haven't even been conceived. The couples who may be their parents haven't even met each other...

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

[tangent]And think of all the pets, zoos, domestic animals, etc., as were mentioned. I don't see how adding a rider to the deal would help. To what extent have domesticated animals been changed? Would they still have the ability to survive on their own in a humanless world? I don't see domesticated Angora rabbits doing well on their own, for instance.[/tangent]

Option 1: The entity also promises to leave behind some humanoid robots that will "take care" of the remaining life on earth in the same way that the terminated humans would have done? Presumably this mean they will continue to keep the lions caged in the zoos, continue to deforest the earth (if there are any forests around in 500-1000 years time) with consequent effects on species that live in that habitat, and so on.
Option 2: All lifeforms on earth will be terminated at "payback time". In other words, your pet Angora rabbit and you will be cease to be at precisely same moment. Hop, hop, hop, gone!

Which option would you prefer if "the deal" has been consummated?

FattyCatty · 4th December 2010, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Clive

I would suggest this is almost certainly not going to happen in our lifetimes or even that of our children or grandchildren. I think you must have a much more optimistic outlook for the future than I do if you think that is likely to happen.

Whether they succeed or not, they will have been given the chance to try.

Quote:

Many would argue that the human race is "doomed" if you look far enough into the future anyway. "Humans" haven't been around very long in evolutionary terms and nobody knows what we will evolve into or even if there will be any surviving direct descendants at all in the longer term. Shouldn't we "party while we can"?

No. As you say, "nobody knows what we will evolve into" if given the chance. I wouldn't want to take away the chance of something better evolving (or even of things continuing on as they are).

I don't know whether there will be any "surviving direct descendants at all in the longer term." But I don't want to take away their possible chance to exist. And even if your "all humanity will die anyway in x amount of time" scenario is a given, I don't want to take away the chance to exist for all those who come before the end.

Quote:

See above.

I understand that it might feel evil. But is it really evil? After all, these people don't exist yet - they haven't even been conceived. The couples who may be their parents haven't even met each other...

I may have misused the word evil, I'm not sure and am still thinking about it. I do believe it would be wrong to take away the chance of existence for all the future generations. I realize I'm being inconsistent, as I don't believe abortion is wrong.

Maybe it's a matter of scale. Maybe it's because to take the deal is to trade in people; to say, our intrinsic worth/existence is more important than yours. To sacrifice someone else's possibility for existence for the personal benefit of a person or group basically is unjust and wrong.

Quote:

Option 1: The entity also promises to leave behind some humanoid robots that will "take care" of the remaining life on earth in the same way that the terminated humans would have done? Presumably this mean they will continue to keep the lions caged in the zoos, continue to deforest the earth (if there are any forests around in 500-1000 years time) with consequent effects on species that live in that habitat, and so on.
Option 2: All lifeforms on earth will be terminated at "payback time". In other words, your pet Angora rabbit and you will be cease to be at precisely same moment. Hop, hop, hop, gone!

Which option would you prefer if "the deal" has been consummated?

I don't like either option, I wouldn't have taken the deal. If someone else took the deal on humanity's behalf and I had to decide what to do about the remaining life on Earth, I'd try to get an amended version of Option 1. Take care of the remaining life on Earth:

So that wild animals and environments are left to manage on their own; no destroying habitats as humanity did; no saving habitats from natural disasters as humanity tried to do.
So that domesticated animals and environments are cared for according to best known practices at the time (in the sense of best for the plants' and animals' welfare, not best in terms of human profit or convenience) with the exception that they no longer need to be killed as food.
So that pets would be taken care of as if they were still pets being cared for according to best standard practices as known at the time (there would have to be houses for cats and robot companions for dogs, probably). I know, cathouses.
So that animals in zoos, aquariums, circuses, and similar captive situations either live out their lives in comfortable, humane, congenial environments according to best standard practices as known at the time or, if they are unable to adapt to captivity, so that they are retrained and released to the wild. There should be no replacements as animals die out so that eventually these institutions would no longer exist.
Left open in case anything else needs to be covered.

Trent Wray · 4th December 2010, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Drachasor

I've hardly made an ad hominem attack. I only was proving my case that your definition of "selfish" is not useful and is not remotely what people mean when they use the word.

Might as well define "selfish" as "least action" and now everything in nature, intelligent or not, is selfish.

See post #34 ......

3rd December 2010, 03:13 AM	#1
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Sign away the future of humanity for a good time now? Here's a little thought experiment: You are offered an anonymous "sign away the future of humanity for a good time now" type of deal by an extremely powerful and convincing entity. If you agree then you can be absolutely certain that what is promised will happen. The decision is yours alone and afterwards neither you nor anybody else (human at least!) will have any memory or other record of any kind of the offer or the choice you made. Will you take the deal or not? If you agree to the offer then the promise is that all humans currently alive and also those in the following few generations will benefit from unspecified (but very significant and broadly desirable) improvements across all aspects of their individual and collective lives. However these "good times" only continue until "payback time" is reached at some random point in the future, say between 500 and 1000 years from when the deal was done. At that time all human existence will be instantaneously and painlessly ended without any warning. Humanity ceases to exist from that point onwards. To be clear, lifespans may possibly increase significantly during the "good times" but not so much that any person alive today nor any of their immediate descendants will be alive at "payback time". If you don't agree to the offer then life will go on without any further interference or interaction from the entity offering the deal. I am not a lawyer, but hopefully this all is clear enough. If necessary, use your own imagination to decide exactly what constitutes "good times" for yourself and others - but still something reasonably realistic. Perhaps world peace, a significant reduction in suffering and disease, lots of stuff just working out well at the individual level, good weather, lots of fun and friends, etc. We can take it that the entity offering this deal knows what you like and want to happen. The point (hopefully) is not to debate the precise details of this relatively short term nirvana but to share whether you would or would not take the deal, and why. How much should we care about people not yet born and their future potential if we can improve our lot in the here and now?
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 03:19 AM	#2
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	its been done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film))
	Last edited by Marduk; 3rd December 2010 at 03:20 AM.

3rd December 2010, 08:00 AM	#4
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, I submit the technology 500-1000 years from now won't even notice problems caused by rising oceans or whatever. Especially at the slow rate of centuries, which won't even bother our tech level now. "Oh, look. Those buildings people built a hundred years ago are being encroached by water. Well, let's just build the new ones further back."
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

3rd December 2010, 08:36 AM	#5
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,738	I would take the deal , but only because I am a selfish bastard without children.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

3rd December 2010, 08:38 AM	#6
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,738	Originally Posted by Beerina If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, I submit the technology 500-1000 years from now won't even notice problems caused by rising oceans or whatever. Especially at the slow rate of centuries, which won't even bother our tech level now. "Oh, look. Those buildings people built a hundred years ago are being encroached by water. Well, let's just build the new ones further back." That ignore a few points, like agrare area potentially shifting from place where they are now. But anyway, as per my post above, I don't really care.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

3rd December 2010, 06:34 AM	#3
Matt the Poet Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 436	It's being done http://www.realclimate.org
	Last edited by Matt the Poet; 3rd December 2010 at 06:35 AM.

3rd December 2010, 08:45 AM	#7
bluesjnr Professional Nemesis for Hire Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Not where I should be. Posts: 2,164	I would not be interested in your deal. The Human race may achieve the ideals set out in the initial "deal" in any case without my intervention. If you have any decent deals that will significantly improve my life only and will do so without dooming the Human race at some point in the future, get back to me.
	__________________ A baby smoking? That's child abuse - UncaYimmy Your avatar really cracked me up the first hundred or so times I saw it...Now, it gets on my nerves.. - Skeptical Greg

3rd December 2010, 09:06 AM	#8
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	I would pass on the deal, its just morally icky to me. The extended life span would be tempting, though.

3rd December 2010, 09:54 AM	#9
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Never make weird deals like that with entities. There's no normally sensible reason they'd be restricted that way, so it means something really weird is going on and you don't have all the facts. Though, if I had the magic power to do that, it would only be a good idea if humanity wasn't going to survive longer than that anyhow, but you'd have to know that for certain in advance before any such deal.

3rd December 2010, 11:12 AM	#10
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	I wouldn't make the deal because two or more people could never agree on what "good times are" and I seriously doubt it would be possible for all of us who accept the deal to be able to interract and have our good times, all the time, as we see fit. Human's don't get along, with or without entities. Plus, we always change our minds on what "good times are." What is a good time to me today, will change ten years from now. And sometimes, my pleasure will be at the expense of other's pain. It's too complicated .... even with just ONE person and ONE entity. We disagree with even ourselves because we are ultra selfish at our core, and unfortunately we are both aware and unaware of it at the same time.

3rd December 2010, 11:15 AM	#11
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Trent Wray we are ultra selfish at our core Not true, and in fact psychological studies as well as ones for the brain indicate we actually have a significant amount of machinery for empathy that we regularly use. People with this machinery broken come in various types, sociopaths is one of them.

3rd December 2010, 11:16 AM	#12
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	I would not take the offer. For a very simple reason -- how do I know this entity is not lying?
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

3rd December 2010, 11:23 AM	#13
patchbunny Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Right about... here. Posts: 1,551	Did Ardra escape from prison or something?
	__________________ "So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66

3rd December 2010, 11:23 AM	#14
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Marduk its been done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film)) That's a nasty twist! Originally Posted by Beerina If the OP is a crypto-climate commentary, <snip> That was not my intention. Originally Posted by Aepervius I would take the deal , but only because I am a selfish bastard without children. Great. Flushing out selfish bastards is one of my goals. If you had (or end up having) children do you think would change your point of view much? Originally Posted by Drachasor Never make weird deals like that with entities. There's no normally sensible reason they'd be restricted that way, so it means something really weird is going on and you don't have all the facts. It's only meant to be a thought experiment with the intention of exploring what kind of "value" people might put on the as yet unborn future generations. If "entity" sounds too much like you-know-who then feel free to replace by "alien" or another alternative if that sits more comfortably with you. What I'm trying to find out is how much you might care (or not) about the existence (in a platonic sense) of yet unborn people whose lives and deaths are (for the purposes of this discussion) not going to have any direct effect on ourselves. Originally Posted by Drachasor Though, if I had the magic power to do that, it would only be a good idea if humanity wasn't going to survive longer than that anyhow, but you'd have to know that for certain in advance before any such deal. If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go?
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 11:42 AM	#15
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Trent Wray I wouldn't make the deal because two or more people could never agree on what "good times are" and I seriously doubt it would be possible for all of us who accept the deal to be able to interract and have our good times, all the time, as we see fit. The entity decides, and nobody will know that "anything special" is going on (except by looking at the probably rather mysterious changes in various statistical data I guess). The idea (in the thought experiment) is that entity will know what is "good" for all of us, both collectively and individually. Obviously there will be some conflicts which you can assume for the sake of this discussion will be resolved in some reasonable way. It's not meant to be "heaven on earth", but for example, if I took the deal I personally wouldn't expect to die from a long and painful cancer. However I'm still going to die, and there will presumably still be rainy days... Originally Posted by Mark6 I would not take the offer. For a very simple reason -- how do I know this entity is not lying? Because that is a premise - the entity is guaranteed to be completely trustworthy. Yeah, it may be difficult to accept something like that but this is only a thought experiment after all. Suspend your disbelief! Originally Posted by patchbunny Did Ardra escape from prison or something? I wasn't familiar with Ardra until reading your link but yes, it sounds a lot like her!
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Last edited by Clive; 3rd December 2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason: insert missing word.

3rd December 2010, 11:46 AM	#16
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Clive If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go? It certainly seems like a worthwhile deal to take if the expected lifespan of humanity is for the same amount of time or less. That said, I don't see how I could tell what the expected lifespan of humanity was. I have no idea what technology we'll have in the future. It might be possible we could survive the heat death of this universe by traveling to another universe or something.

3rd December 2010, 11:51 AM	#17
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by Clive That's a nasty twist! Basically, another variation on Perverted Wishes trope. Originally Posted by Clive Because that is a premise - the entity is guaranteed to be completely trustworthy. Yeah, it may be difficult to accept something like that but this is only a thought experiment after all. Suspend your disbelief! I won't. When confronted with this sort of thought experiment, I will ONLY answer as if it were real-life situation. As in: Q: If you were stuck on a deserted island with one person, who would you want it to be? A: Someone who knows how to distill seawater, and otherwise skilled in wilderness survival. If you insist on a name, I know a few people like that. If you think this defeats the purpose of thought experiment -- too bad. That's my answer.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

3rd December 2010, 12:05 PM	#18
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Drachasor It certainly seems like a worthwhile deal to take if the expected lifespan of humanity is for the same amount of time or less. That said, I don't see how I could tell what the expected lifespan of humanity was. I have no idea what technology we'll have in the future. It might be possible we could survive the heat death of this universe by traveling to another universe or something. I don't know what's going to happen in the distant future either, but at least this deal means it's going to be much better than you might otherwise expect for the next little while at least and 5 billion years is a fairly generous "next little while"! We may even have evolved into something too horrendous to contemplate at that point in time in which case our destruction may be "just what the universe needs". Really, why should we care at all about what happens in the distant future?
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 12:12 PM	#19
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Clive I don't know what's going to happen in the distant future either, but at least this deal means it's going to be much better than you might otherwise expect for the next little while at least and 5 billion years is a fairly generous "next little while"! We may even have evolved into something too horrendous to contemplate at that point in time in which case our destruction may be "just what the universe needs". Really, why should we care at all about what happens in the distant future? The "next little while" is a very short time indeed. It certainly isn't longer than 50 years. After that the not knowing what is going to happen really kicks in. And there's no objective reason to value your happiness or those around for the next little while more than those in the future or far, far future.

3rd December 2010, 12:16 PM	#20
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Mark6 I won't. Fair enough. Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share?
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 12:22 PM	#21
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Drachasor Not true, and in fact psychological studies as well as ones for the brain indicate we actually have a significant amount of machinery for empathy that we regularly use. People with this machinery broken come in various types, sociopaths is one of them. Yes but empathy is also selfish. We serve our own ends through empathy all the time. Even sacrificial heroes can be serving their own ego's by their actions, etc. I have looked down the barrel of guns and been a human shield several times .... some of those times were purely to feed my own ego or the ability to respond from training and detachment from the reality of possibly dying. Other times I would have been willing to give my life, however, I wouldn't have been willing to be tortured for example. In general ,.... imho ..... we are selfish to the core ultimately when suffering is the bottom line. We don't like to suffer. We make calculated risks in regards to suffering, but even when faced with death, we generally hope death will be swift and free of personal suffering. So even in our empathy, we generally will draw the line at various forms of suffering, thus revealing our empathy and "altruisim" often has a price. Now, obviously there are a few individuals who will suffer great pain for the sake of others, or ideals, or causes, etc. But overall, people act on their own best interests for their own gain, and "pure" sacrifices are RARE. Again, IMHO Originally Posted by Clive Fair enough. Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share? lol
	Last edited by Trent Wray; 3rd December 2010 at 12:25 PM.

3rd December 2010, 12:39 PM	#22
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by Clive If you are sure that the entire universe will definitely end (as far as we are concerned at least) at some very distant point in time due to something like the "heat death of the universe" or the "big crunch" then it sounds like you might be more likely to take the deal if the payback time was much more distant. How about in 5 billion years time instead of 500? If it s yes for 5 billion, how much lower will you go? That is an interesting twist. It shouldn't make a difference morally if I'm killing humanity in 500 years or 5 billion, but I must admit that I'd be more open to the offer. I think its partly because 5 billion years is such a mind bogglingly large amount of time. I might even consider as low as one million. One million years of happiness and prosperity. I'd have to think about it.

3rd December 2010, 12:41 PM	#23
TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Communist Kingdom of Sweden Posts: 7,395	I wouldn't offer the deal in the first place.
	__________________ Disagreement begets progress.

3rd December 2010, 12:43 PM	#24
phantomb Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 567	I wouldn't want to be one of the guys when it comes time for the "payback", so I wouldn't take this deal and do that to an entire generation of people down the line.

3rd December 2010, 12:51 PM	#25
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Yes but empathy is also selfish. We serve our own ends through empathy all the time. Even sacrificial heroes can be serving their own ego's by their actions, etc. I have looked down the barrel of guns and been a human shield several times .... some of those times were purely to feed my own ego or the ability to respond from training and detachment from the reality of possibly dying. Other times I would have been willing to give my life, however, I wouldn't have been willing to be tortured for example. In general ,.... imho ..... we are selfish to the core ultimately when suffering is the bottom line. We don't like to suffer. We make calculated risks in regards to suffering, but even when faced with death, we generally hope death will be swift and free of personal suffering. So even in our empathy, we generally will draw the line at various forms of suffering, thus revealing our empathy and "altruisim" often has a price. Now, obviously there are a few individuals who will suffer great pain for the sake of others, or ideals, or causes, etc. But overall, people act on their own best interests for their own gain, and "pure" sacrifices are RARE. Again, IMHO A guy sacrifices his life to save some homeless beggars? "Oh, he's just did it for his ego, the selfish bastard!" You have successfully defined "selfish" so that it doesn't really mean anything. Congrats?

3rd December 2010, 01:14 PM	#26
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by phantomb I wouldn't want to be one of the guys when it comes time for the "payback", so I wouldn't take this deal and do that to an entire generation of people down the line. I also don't really like the idea of dying any earlier than needed but that doesn't seem rational. Why should we really have any fear or worry of dying if that will happen without any warning, instantaneously, painlessly, and also at the same time as everybody else that could possibly still be around to care? Hmm. I've just realised that I overlooked the welfare needs of pets, and other animals possibly locked in cages at zoos, etc.! If this bothers you also then please add an extra clause to your contract as required. Please accept my apologies for the oversight.
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 01:38 PM	#27
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba I wouldn't offer the deal in the first place. Sometimes I fantasize that I will wake up one morning, find everything is back to front, and I really am evil. See?
Clive Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 303

3rd December 2010, 01:48 PM	#28
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by Clive Fair enough. Do you have a viewpoint on abortion that you're willing to share? Not on this thread, no.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

4th December 2010, 12:03 AM	#29
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Drachasor A guy sacrifices his life to save some homeless beggars? "Oh, he's just did it for his ego, the selfish bastard!" You have successfully defined "selfish" so that it doesn't really mean anything. Congrats? What? How am I defining it so that it doesn't mean anything? It's a neutral term in the sense I'm using it ..... plus I'm using it to describe someone who is serving their own ends. Hence .... selfish. And yes ..... a guy sacrifices his life .... a one time act ..... for some homeless beggars and it could be serving his own ends. Perhaps his ego. Or his sense of pride and accomplishment. Perhaps he feels as though he is being loving by doing so ..... a hero in his final moments. Perhaps he's been looking many years for a reason to die for a cause or a person who isn't able to pay him back. His motive could ultimately be to serve his own ideals ... which are pleasing to him on some level. HIS CHOICE. And I wasn't making a blanket statement ..... it's why I made the rest of my post the way I did with qualifiers Now, if he's caught unknowingly in gunfire or something, then he's a VICTIM. Perhaps he didn't choose to give his life .... perhaps the choice was made for him. It is therefore unforseen and not something that would be selfish. He's a victim. But if he's willingly choosing to sacrifice his life then yes .... he's choosing to do what he wants for whatever his reasons are. It's selfish. So I don't get your bottom line unless you're just picking my statement apart for some alterior motive you might have ......
	Last edited by Trent Wray; 4th December 2010 at 12:07 AM. Reason: changed wording

4th December 2010, 12:34 AM	#30
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Trent Wray What? How am I defining it so that it doesn't mean anything? It's a neutral term in the sense I'm using it ..... plus I'm using it to describe someone who is serving their own ends. Hence .... selfish. And yes ..... a guy sacrifices his life .... a one time act ..... for some homeless beggars and it could be serving his own ends. Perhaps his ego. Or his sense of pride and accomplishment. Perhaps he feels as though he is being loving by doing so ..... a hero in his final moments. Perhaps he's been looking many years for a reason to die for a cause or a person who isn't able to pay him back. His motive could ultimately be to serve his own ideals ... which are pleasing to him on some level. HIS CHOICE. And I wasn't making a blanket statement ..... it's why I made the rest of my post the way I did with qualifiers Now, if he's caught unknowingly in gunfire or something, then he's a VICTIM. Perhaps he didn't choose to give his life .... perhaps the choice was made for him. It is therefore unforseen and not something that would be selfish. He's a victim. But if he's willingly choosing to sacrifice his life then yes .... he's choosing to do what he wants for whatever his reasons are. It's selfish. So I don't get your bottom line unless you're just picking my statement apart for some alterior motive you might have ...... You've defined it so every action is selfish. Hence it doesn't mean anything. Might as well just say "people act" because you've defined selfishness so there's no distinction. It's a completely useless definition. And yeah, the rare people who do this irk me when they bring it up because really it is an attack on the idea of altruism and it is a LAME attack. Let's look at how selfishness is actually used: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> 3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes> Ok, now let's look. 1) Is the guy sacrificing himself excessively or exclusively concerned with himself? I don't see how. He's acting with great regard for others. Same with the person who donates silently to charity or the like. 2) Again, no disregard for others. Also, like with 1) people that sacrifice of themselves for others are not overly concerned with their own welfare. It is in fact just the opposite. 3) Well..I don't think that's applicable here. So what you have done is make up a ridiculous definition for "selfish" that no one would ever use, doesn't help describing anything, goes against what people mean by the word, and just generally isn't good for anything. No offense.

4th December 2010, 12:50 AM	#31
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,762	"Caveat Emptor" "The devil is in the details" "The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away" (other cliques)

4th December 2010, 03:06 AM	#32
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,096	Originally Posted by Marduk its been done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film)) The original Twilight Zone episode was far batter, the film dragged out the idea too far. And no I wouldn't take the deal.

4th December 2010, 04:02 AM	#33
Barney Gumble New Blood Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 12	No deal, Too vague of a concept, and this entity assumes I and those around me have lives that are so terrible that we would be willing to condemn future generations for some better times now.

4th December 2010, 06:52 AM	#34
Trent Wray I Will Not Impregnate You Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 4,562	Originally Posted by Drachasor You've defined it so every action is selfish. Hence it doesn't mean anything. Might as well just say "people act" because you've defined selfishness so there's no distinction. It's a completely useless definition. And yeah, the rare people who do this irk me when they bring it up because really it is an attack on the idea of altruism and it is a LAME attack. Let's look at how selfishness is actually used: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> 3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes> Ok, now let's look. 1) Is the guy sacrificing himself excessively or exclusively concerned with himself? I don't see how. He's acting with great regard for others. Same with the person who donates silently to charity or the like. 2) Again, no disregard for others. Also, like with 1) people that sacrifice of themselves for others are not overly concerned with their own welfare. It is in fact just the opposite. 3) Well..I don't think that's applicable here. So what you have done is make up a ridiculous definition for "selfish" that no one would ever use, doesn't help describing anything, goes against what people mean by the word, and just generally isn't good for anything. No offense. Yeah I can see my opinion irks you .... and while you are exhibiting subversive adhom arguments and taking a few bits and pieces of what I've said out of context and ignoring the rest .... I'm still trying to get passed that you used the word "lame" against me in this conversation Which basically makes you and I's conversation stop here ..... cuz you are so defensive there is no point to continuing it ... we'll go nowhere except the JREF "I'm right, no I'm right," circuit, which is the most annoying part of this (or any) forum. Sometimes lol
	Last edited by Trent Wray; 4th December 2010 at 06:53 AM.

4th December 2010, 11:54 AM	#35
Drachasor Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,718	Originally Posted by Trent Wray Yeah I can see my opinion irks you .... and while you are exhibiting subversive adhom arguments and taking a few bits and pieces of what I've said out of context and ignoring the rest .... I'm still trying to get passed that you used the word "lame" against me in this conversation Which basically makes you and I's conversation stop here ..... cuz you are so defensive there is no point to continuing it ... we'll go nowhere except the JREF "I'm right, no I'm right," circuit, which is the most annoying part of this (or any) forum. Sometimes lol I've hardly made an ad hominem attack. I only was proving my case that your definition of "selfish" is not useful and is not remotely what people mean when they use the word. Might as well define "selfish" as "least action" and now everything in nature, intelligent or not, is selfish.