Submitted by [deleted] t3_10cd4by in singularity
PandaCommando69 t1_j4f5l0y wrote
>you could lose yourself in the process
Yeah, we should just wait around to die instead. That's a brilliant idea and zero people have ever suggested it before.
[deleted] OP t1_j4f5wk9 wrote
One day you will die, and it's not clear that this is ultimately a bad thing in the long run.
turnip_burrito t1_j4f64co wrote
Bad is subjective and highly personal. If people want to live longer and experience new things, and if this makes them a bit happier, why not?
[deleted] OP t1_j4f6dyn wrote
What if it comes at the expense of new lives coming into being?
turnip_burrito t1_j4f6rgm wrote
Also highly subjective. Depends on who you ask.
photo_graphic_arts t1_j4f88va wrote
Do you think that the Baby Boomers were right to consume an incredible quantity of resources while emitting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, putting earth on the path to catastrophic climate change? Was it their right to do so? Does it matter that Americans burning fossil fuels today are harming poor farmers in Africa, both now and in the future, due to global warming and its consequence? Is this also highly subjective?
If any of this connects for you, then you accept part of OP's argument about (hypothetical) people today choosing to live forever at the expense of others, who for one reason or the other, cannot.
turnip_burrito t1_j4f8ia9 wrote
The comment I was replying to was vague. I read it as "living at the expense of the ability of new lives to come into being", as in weighing the value of one person living forever against the value of adding one new person to the population count.
For my reply to the other interpretation of their words, harming future generations that will surely exist is similar to harming people that exist today.
photo_graphic_arts t1_j4f8v8s wrote
For sure - OP is stirring the pot, and though I agree with them generally, they could take a few minutes and make some more substantive arguments, imo. I added my own flavor by interpreting their comment in the most sensible way I could think of.
Also, I actually thought you were a different poster and would have taken a different tone if I had a do-over. Such is life. Maybe I'll get a do-over if the AGI allows!
turnip_burrito t1_j4f97wg wrote
I see! It's hard to say whether you'd be in luck if AGI discovers time travel, if the Terminator series is anything to go by. :p
photo_graphic_arts t1_j4f9emk wrote
lol, good luck all of us!
175ParkAvenue t1_j4foi52 wrote
Every generation is consuming "an incredible amount of resources" compared to the previous one, and that is a good thing. We have not even scratched the surface of the available matter and energy in the reachable Universe.
Saerain t1_j4i7uem wrote
Unless existence is viewed as necessarily a state of increasing suffering, I don't see how that couldn't be a bad thing.
And I don't really ultimately care more about myself—I want people to not be forced to decay and die against their will, doesn't matter that much if it only becomes possible after my lifetime. Humanity deserves it.
Tyrannus_ignus t1_j601yrt wrote
that implies suffering is a bad thing, it is just a biological function.
[deleted] OP t1_j4f5yaj wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments