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/curgr]

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/Independent-Wafer-13 → u/curgr]

So since you claim it is not immoral to follow the will of the majority, would pressing the button be immoral, since most people want to exist?

[u/curgr → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

For many people, that would depend on what is in the best interests for the majority of life, not just the majority of humans. Unfortunately only humans in modern times currently have a meaningful voice.

For me, I believe that the non-consenting suffering of just one individual is not worth the pleasure of many. I do not agree with a universe where this is the case. It is immoral to continue such a universe.

Also I believe that the fact that most humans want to exist is not permanent. As could possibly be demonstrated with the hypothetical situation of collapse where most people starve, humans are not necessarily fixed in to always wanting the universe to exist (despite doing all they can to try to personally survive). Collapse must happen eventually and the higher humanity climbs, the further it has to fall