Mankind's Inherent Value

[Soandso]

But there is no possibility of valuation without awareness. An unaware universe has no value at all.

Hmmm... An interesting point. I'm not sure awareness is required for value to exist, though. Even single celled organisms need food to exist. Wouldn't that food in itself be valuable for that organism even though they have a minimal level of awareness?

What does intelligence have to do with it?

It seems to me that different levels of intelligence afford different levels of conscious awareness, no? An animal with a brain is going to have a different idea of awareness than an animal with a basin nervous system, and that animal is going to have a different level of awareness than something like a tardigrade.

 

[blü 2]

Imagine a scale of inherent value. Directly in the middle of this scale is all of mankind

------ Higher

------ Mankind

------ Lower

Where do you place life outside of mankind on this scale? Do you place all other life on this planet above mankind in importance, does it have the same importance to you, or is everything else less important to you than mankind?

With your answer in mind I want you to answer another question for me. Let's say you were forced to make a decision; you have to either push a button that would wipe out all other life on earth and save mankind only, or push the other button that would wipe out mankind and spare all other life on the planet. In this hypothetical scenario, if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine. What do you choose and why?

In discussions on "good" and "bad" in the past, it has occurred to me that perhaps the most moral thing dolphins could do for the survival of their species is wipe out humans. (For dolphins, alternatively read any smart species eg chimps, bonobos &c.)

Being not just a human but a father and grandfather, I like the idea that humans have a future. I'm likewise appalled at how stupid we humans can be when it comes to our longterm survival ─ maybe it IS time to disappear and let the dolphins have a turn.

 

[Watchmen]

In discussions on "good" and "bad" in the past, it has occurred to me that perhaps the most moral thing dolphins could do for the survival of their species is wipe out humans. (For dolphins, alternatively read any smart species eg chimps, bonobos &c.)

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

 

[Mock Turtle]

You know, I think it may be possible that given enough time another species may fill the evolutionary niche that humanity currently holds as per convergent evolution. We aren't the first ones to hold the current role, we are just the most crazy and creative ones to do it so far. If we do end up wiping ourselves out, it would be interesting to think of some other animals eventually filling that same role. Who knows!

I didn't vote - because of the complexities - and also because human life without any non-human life would be so much poorer, and our vanishing would probably not solve anything for the rest of life - as pointed out. The bonobos would likely be the front-runners, if they could expand a lot more, given they seem to be the likeliest in line - having the intelligence, although orangutans might be a consideration. But I do think that it would have to be a primate species given that no species could probably become as advanced as ourselves without manipulating their environment to the extent we do. Even if we do so in so many negative ways. Not surprising as to the vote though.

 

[Madsaac]

In this hypothetical scenario, if one chooses to save mankind then man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine. What do you choose and why?

You did say "....man would be able to persist and thrive without other life existing just fine."

Mankind then, I don't think its a hard question really, humanity is number one. Our ability to reflect and grow is like no other. I'm surprised the majority can't appreciate that.

Who knows we may be on another planet in a billion years with lots of other animals.

Don't judge to harshly please

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmmm... An interesting point. I'm not sure awareness is required for value to exist, though. Even single celled organisms need food to exist. Wouldn't that food in itself be valuable for that organism even though they have a minimal level of awareness?



It seems to me that different levels of intelligence afford different levels of conscious awareness, no? An animal with a brain is going to have a different idea of awareness than an animal with a basin nervous system, and that animal is going to have a different level of awareness than something like a tardigrade.

The problem is that there is a class of words that have no objective referent. Value is one of those. Food to have value requries someone to think/feel it has value.

 

[PureX]

Hmmm... An interesting point. I'm not sure awareness is required for value to exist, though. Even single celled organisms need food to exist. Wouldn't that food in itself be valuable for that organism even though they have a minimal level of awareness?

Nevertheless ... awareness. But is that conscious awareness? We might say a river has an awareness of gravity and topography because it responds to them both. But that would be just semantic sophistry, because the river has no conscious awareness of these forces acting upon it. The river is not responding to them, it's simply a part of the same meta-system as them.

It seems to me that different levels of intelligence afford different levels of conscious awareness, no? An animal with a brain is going to have a different idea of awareness than an animal with a basin nervous system, and that animal is going to have a different level of awareness than something like a tardigrade.

Yes. My point is that it's the conscious awareness that has existential value. Life has value only in that it enables that conscious awareness.

 

[dybmh]

@Soandso ,

Your thought provoking thread is still on my mind. Has anyone raised the issue of consent? This qualifies as a "deal-breaker" for me. I cannot choose option #2, to save all the others and sacrifice all human lives.

I, myself, can consent to sacrifice myself for all the others. I cannot in good conscience make that choice for each and every other human being the planet. I feel very strongly about personal freedom. It's way up at the top of my priorities in my own personal moral code.

Since I cannot in good faith make choice #2 for any other humans besides myself, there is only one option left. Save the humans and figure out how to sustain ourselves or die trying.

Besides if you favor the animals, plants, insects, etc... What would they choose? Would they sacrifice themselves? What would a lion do? What about a mouse? An ant? Do you have any experience with English ivy?

I, dybmh, will not go gently into the night.
I will rage, rage, against the dying of the light.*

If something happens and all our natural resources suddenly expire. Well. We'll figure it, or not. But I'm not going down without a fight.

Have a nice Friday and a good weekend, boss.

*Dylan Thomas ref