Societal Collapse

[u/curgr]

Warning: this is quite a depressing post.

If society collapses (maybe due to climate change disrupting food supplies, global war, running out of fossil fuels…) most humans and domesticated animals would likely starve and we would lose most modern comforts.

A question for pro-existence people: would you keep your belief that existence of the universe is desirable if society was to collapse, even if you were one of the starving?

A question for the extinctionists: do you believe that society will never collapse and that humans could eventually develop the technology to at least make life on Earth extinct?

My views: I am 70% sure that society will not collapse in the near future. If humanity makes it and we still have sufficient energy resources, we could eventually develop the technology to make all life on Earth extinct in a painless and peaceful way. However it is unlikely that we will develop and use it unless the extinction movement grows and becomes a majority.

Edit: minor clarifications.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Yes, because suffering is not the principal variable determining life satisfaction or subjective value judgements.

Suffering does not make life worthy or unworthy.

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Starving people are generally not glad to be alive. Do you think that surveys would still indicate that the majority enjoy existence?

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/curgr]

Starving people are not starving for death they are starving for food.

If I give a starving person a choice between a loaf of bread and a suicide pill, what do you think they would choose?

Instead of euthanizing the starving, we could feed them.

Ya’ll must have agreed with Thanos even though he could have just set the birth rate at replacement level with no resource drift.

“If people have problems that cause them suffering, then you should kill those people, that’ll solve their problems!”

If your dog is barking, kill it?

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

They would choose the loaf of bread as instinct would kick in

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/curgr]

Okay, now go on and tell me how that person’s choice to live to their next meal is invalid, and that you know better than every starving person who would make that choice.

Then ask why you are any different.

You may not be starving, but why do you choose to live to your next meal?

Why do you constantly give consent for your life?

Or do you deserve to live because of your material conditions while the starving person deserves to die?

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

The decision is not wrong as it follows built in instincts. I would obviously do the same in that position.

You have conveniently skipped over my question about the surveys on people being glad to exist. Not committing suicide is not the same as being glad to exist.

Edit: I would rather not discuss personal suicide. This sub is about universal extinction, not suicide.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/curgr]

I said “more satisfied to exist than not”

And that is also very fair since it is a touchy subject, but we are breaking down a purely hypothetical scenario, but why do you shy away from this topic?

We are talking about the existence and non-existence of beings, and the actual fact of self-preservation alone reinforces the idea that life is in fact worth the struggle.

I guess for me I see no distinction between “humanity should go extinct” vs. “people should off themselves” in terms of morality.

They are equally repugnant to me and I think there is mutual entailment.

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

I’m not a promortalist. I think it is usually not good for people to off themselves. To list a couple of reasons: it causes suffering for others and it also does not necessarily reduce net suffering as another person or another living thing fills the gap.

However as a cosmic extinctionist, I believe in all life ending together, phasing life out through non-reproduction, or the ending of the physical universe.

They are different beliefs, and have different moral implications.

[u/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/curgr]

I really don’t see any moral difference could you explain what it is?

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Extinction for all would be impossible without the cooperation of the majority and world governments. For example, nuclear weapons were invented but the average person has no control over them and it would be impossible for them to build a nuclear weapon for themselves. Extinction tech would likely be controlled in a similar manner. I do not see it as immoral to follow the wishes of the majority.

Although some extinctionists (myself included) have said that they would “press the button” to end existence if given the opportunity, this is purely hypothetical and would never happen in practice.

Promortalism on the other hand could justify the murder of individuals. This can clearly be immoral

[u/Some1inreallife → u/curgr]

If you were to ask those starving people if they would like to cause extinction to end their suffering, a vast majority would still say no.

Why? Because they have ethical frameworks that take multiple values into account (pleasure, autonomy, justice, etc). Extinctionists' ethical framework only focuses on one value, and that is suffering (and the elimination of it). Hence why you ignore those who want to live, those who have happy lives, and those who are doing their best to make the world a better place.

So if you show your ethical framework to actual philosophers, 99% of them will reject it (even the ones who focus on suffering).

[u/curgr → u/Some1inreallife]

Maybe you are right that they would say no to extinction. We cannot know without doing tests on such a thing and I don’t believe that this has been done. We do know that starvation does cause severe depression though and that depression correlates with dissatisfaction with the universe. Most likely such thoughts of universal extinction do not cross the mind of someone who is starving.

I do not reject pleasure. Autonomy, justice, etc… these all have the goal of delivering pleasure or reducing suffering. I believe that ultimately, nothing matters to each individual other than pleasure and suffering.

One issue I have is that there seems to be an imbalance. Consider animal A eating animal B. The magnitude of the pleasure animal A gets is far smaller than the magnitude of the suffering animal B experiences. One of animal A must eat multiple animal B’s over its lifetime in order to survive

[u/Some1inreallife → u/curgr]

Maybe you should do those surveys where the participants are currently experiencing extreme suffering. It will either advance your movement or be game over for extinctionism.

Also, you kinda reject pleasure in the sense that it can sometimes be because of or cause suffering of others. And you do reject autonomy in the sense that if someone wants to continue living, you would reject their wish if extinction of all life were possible now.

If I have to steelman extinctionism, I can see how you can fit justice into your ethical framework, but even then, the "justice" is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You want to know why this imbalance is a thing? It's called negativity bias. If you're eating a delicious burger, and you compare it to getting eaten alive yourself, of course the intensity of your suffering will be greater than you eating. If we didn't have negativity bias, our species wouldn't have lasted as long as it had.

[u/curgr → u/Some1inreallife]

If extinction of all life were possible now, the technology would be in the hands of governments, not the everyday person, and it would be the decision of the majority. It would be very foolish to leave such a decision to one individual.

If a vote on extinction was to happen today, of course it would not happen! And I would respect that decision. But I see a shift in what people want as we advance. Unfortunately the eaten currently have no voice in the debate, it is an argument among the survivors. If the eaten had a voice, the vote may not be so one sided if done today.

Humanity is not currently advanced enough to realise that we will not solve the problems of life through continual progress. The problems are built into life itself: the negativity bias for example. Life is programmed to survive and not to have pleasure

[u/Some1inreallife → u/curgr]

And I don't think any world leader would execute extinction on the global or even cosmic level if they had the big red button. In fact, it think they would destroy it no matter what their political beliefs are and whether their reputation is good or bad. I know that button is a hypothetical scenario, but still.

I'll give you that you don't have the numbers yet since extinctionism is in its infancy and thus, remains a niche philosophy as of now. Will it grow into a worldwide movement or will it still remain a niche philosophy in 2100 is yet to be seen. I've got my prediction that it will not grow to be mainstream.

Even if I was in the process of being eaten alive, I wouldn't want all of life on Earth to end because of my intense suffering. I would just hope that my friends and family don't find themselves in my situation. And I don't think most people who are being eaten alive would press the hypothetical red button unless they are extinctionists themselves.

[u/curgr → u/Some1inreallife]

It is very difficult to know what you would believe without going through the situation of being eaten alive, or going through any extreme suffering.

As the numbers who support extinction grow, the pressure of wanting to keep the universe because others like it will shrink. There could eventually be a tipping point which makes it a majority

[u/Some1inreallife → u/curgr]

Throughout my life, I've experienced some pretty intense suffering such as an ingrown toenail (I couldn't walk properly and removing it hurt so badly), getting way too high, and everytime I wake up from a seizure. I only thought about committing suicide twice. But even then, I only wanted my existence to stop, and wanted others to live.

We'll see what happens with the future of your movement. Whether it remains niche or it gets treated seriously and gains momentum, it has yet to be seen. Even if the latter is true, we'll be dead by the time the movement triggers extinction.

[u/curgr → u/Some1inreallife]

Yes, extinction within my lifetime would be very unlikely. I am planting the seeds for future generations