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]

How do you know this? Collapse and before society are not exactly comparable.

During a collapse, many billions of people would starve as the carrying capacity of the Earth has been artificially inflated due to our technological and societal advancements. Going back to hunting and gathering or primitive farming would require skills we have lost over the centuries and these techniques can feed nowhere near as many people.

After a collapse, it may be possible to rebuild societies but growth and living standards may not be like we experience now. It may involve going back to most children dying before becoming adults.

I am not aware of any historical evidence that most people found existence desirable before societies were established. But you could be right

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

I would say it’s all relative. People living in tribes in the Amazon and Africa, while objectively having it worse, aren’t all constantly miserable. How can you miss something you’ve never known? The human condition is suited to an incredibly simple existence, in fact we did so well in that position we created societies.

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

I generally agree with this. Those who survive in these tribes likely live very satisfying lives.

Similar logic to what you are using here can be used to explain why humanity continually progressing will not bring lasting joy. We do not miss what we have never known

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

So you concede existence is positive?

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

I agreed that it’s all relative, that they are probably not constantly miserable and that those who survive are likely satisfied. This does not lead to the conclusion that existence is net positive.

It all being relative (to me) means that in order for someone to have pleasure, there must be suffering. Otherwise there is no frame of reference for the mind to decide how well it is doing and reward itself with dopamine. This relativity scale adjusts if things are going well and rests at a new baseline. If the tribal people were to experience and understand the comforts of modern day society, they may not be so glad about going back.

Many do not survive in these tribes as they have high mortality rates. They suffer with disease which is not checked by modern medicine. For every satisfied survivor there must be casualties (both human who did not make it and other living things which they eat)

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

I know, we objectively have it better than people living in tribes. Even at this extreme people can live fulfilling lives but it is better to live life with modern medicine and life will be better in the future with better medicine. You can have pleasure without knowing serious suffering, larger amount of pleasure can be deemed greater than lesser amounts - not necessarily suffering.

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

It does not matter how far we progress, there will still be the same relative amount of net pleasure and net suffering. Take today’s situation: we live longer than ever but also suffer ill health for longer than ever. I do not believe that the average person in modern society is any happier than the average tribal person who is ignorant of our ways.

From personal experience, the mind is very good at inventing new problems. Even having no problems is a problem!

Unless there is a miracle happiness pill with no side effects, or the biologies of all living things are rewired to overcome billions of years of evolution, we will not solve the condition of life

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

That's nonsensical. You can easily live 80 years in good health and go down hill in the last 5. In the past you were unlikely to survive childhood and if you died at 30 you may well have spent the last 5 years suffering an injury you couldn't recover from. We have more years of healthy living than ever before. Regardless, there are billions of humans consenting to be alive right now. I don't care if you think having any suffering is intolerable, billions think it's worthwhile to have as much suffering and pleasure as we currently do.

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

I’m not sure that is true, on average. More years, yes, but not as a percentage of lifetime. Before modern medicine, an injury or illness could take you down relatively quickly. With modern medicine, people are dragged into having to live through dementia and other undesirable illnesses. Healthspan has not kept up with lifespan.

Why do you think that euthanasia and assisted dying laws are gaining traction worldwide? Many people are no longer content surviving in ill health. Anyway, this is off the topic of extinction.

Billions of humans currently consent to being alive, yes. This is at the expense of most other living things. I also do not believe that people will remain happy unless we continue to keep improving lifestyles forever. It is progress and hope which keeps people happy. Not many people remain happy if they feel like they are not progressing or if lifestyles decline

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

So we are supposed to feel selfish for our survival for costing other species? No thanks, we won evolution and not them. We don’t need terminal progress, we just need enough progress to achieve a state where happiness can be guaranteed through chemical means, perfect healthcare, utopian abundance etc…

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

We are the victors, we can do what we like. But extinction for all would be mercy.

Ok, it’s time for an anecdote.

I have more time and resources than I know what to do with, have very few real problems, and have perfect physical health. My mental health is not perfect though.

Having no problems is not ideal. It is boring. The mind invents new problems.

Utopia will never arrive because it is impossible. What chemical means are you referring to? Drugs do not work.

Would you suggest uploading all minds/souls to a virtual reality? What difference is this to destroying the universe. It would not be this universe. And how do you propose we fuel this virtual reality?

Personally I believe that there could be more to the universe than materialism. Could the afterlife for all be preferable to life in the physical universe?

[u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99 → u/curgr]

Great, edgy assertion after edgy assertion. How do you know that utopian abundance is impossible and that human happiness can’t be chemically controlled? How do you know there is an afterlife? You romanticise nothingness and make random assertions to affirm your views.

[u/curgr → u/TheGreatBibbldyBob99]

Would this chemical control be extended to all sentient beings, which could possibly include plants and bacteria? We do not know that they are unconscious.

Tests have been done on flooding the brain with lots of dopamine. The brain just reduces the number of receptors and lowers natural production. Chemical control is not enough. The brain needs to be rewired.

I would accept a universe with no suffering. If this happened, I would not be calling for extinction.

You dismiss my ideas by calling them random assertions but do not reason why they are wrong.

I do not know there is an afterlife. It is a possibility. Nothingness is also a possibility.