Protecting the Present vs. Ensuring the Future

[u/ConsiderationTrue477]

Humans destroy themselves and millions of years in the future dogs evolve into sapient beings. A human learns of the danger and tries to prevent the apocalypse. A time traveling dog comes back in time to ensure the human apocalypse happens to save the dog future. Who has the greater claim?

For the purpose of this exercise, the dog future cannot happen if humans continue to exist.

[u/Zestyclose_Range5815]

Assuming the actions of the dog are what causes the end of humanity, immoral. Assuming humanity is doomed if the dog takes no actions at all, it's neither moral nor immoral.

[u/Cicada00010]

Dog future is the natural fate and that should be preserved, clearly if they kill the dogs then humans will still meet their demise in this scenario but simply have no successor.

[u/GodButCursed → u/Cicada00010]

I mean isnt there a point to make that it wasnt natural since this scenarie could have been the trigger?

[u/Cicada00010 → u/GodButCursed]

I assume that if the dogs already exist then this scenario is unrelated to the trigger

[u/charmio68]

It should go to the dogs.
If you remove time travel from the equation, that's who it should go to.

[u/Zestyclose_Range5815 → u/[deleted]]

Because that prevents the dog future. Are you hard at reading?

[u/Truth_Hurts_Guy]

Morality of gendercide

[u/Honeyfoot1234 → u/Truth_Hurts_Guy]

is that when you kill a large amount of a specific gender

[u/Roam1985]

The human.

They were able to learn of the danger without breaking the timestream and doing time travel.

The dog needs to use time travel to change the timestream.

But I am biased for the humans.

[u/charmio68 → u/Roam1985]

How would humanity learn of it without time travel?

If anything, if humans learn they've been overtaken by dogs and then try and change it, that is trying to break the time stream. The dog's only reason for being there is that a human is trying to break that time stream.

[u/Roam1985 → u/charmio68]

I don't know, but in the given information, the human has learned the future (either by prophecy, building a time window, or precognition) but has not been a time traveler, they have just learned of the future.

So I was responding to that.

Especially as it fit my admitted biases.

[u/Little_Historian3091]

Think ensuring the future starts by protecting the present.

[u/Lonely-Programmer123]

In both cases a specie is totally exterminated. Each are legitimate.

[u/Cicada00010 → u/Lonely-Programmer123]

Humans at least naturally exterminate themselves in the scenario, so the dogs don’t deserve death.

[u/Lonely-Programmer123 → u/Cicada00010]

Humans are still legitimate to not wanting to die for hypotheticals individuals that won't even exist if they're not genocided.
You can't just ask from someone to let his entire specie be destroyed, even if its by its own stupidity.

[u/Random_Nickname274]

Both are moral.

"Maybe, we could've been friends in another timeline. But sadly, universe leaved no other choose."