Would you wipe out humanity if it were to save a trillion other sentient species

[Quintessence]

Some issues with this hypothetical situation:

"Sentience" is difficult to define. Further, there is no compelling reason why it should make an entity "more valuable" than some other entity. Such a dilemma is fortunately not applicable to my own path, as I endow all the Universe with "sentience" in some meaning of the word. But to place a premium value on sentience otherwise seems a tad anthropocentric to me.

Setting aside that issue, the hypothetical situation also seems to assume that quantity alone is a meaningful measure of value. This does not always hold true either, as other underlying aspects can be of greater importance or value. If a species is overpopulated, it makes more sense to save one and kill a thousand than save a thousand and kill one, for example.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Why shouldn't you assign moral weight to sentients and sentients only? I don't have to try and coexist with a rock; it just lays there... doing rockish things. I don't have to try and prevent causing pain to blades of grass (at least according to our best understanding of grass). And I certainly don't have to deal with the emotional shock and trauma of having my wheat toast suddenly cry out while I am eating it.


Now, I am one of the first to defend animal rights. I can pretty confidently claim that dogs, cats, and presumably more advanced animals have primitive emotional states. All my dogs have had moods that were obvious once you got to know them. Whimpering when nothing else is wrong other than I am giving them the cold shoulder sounds a lot like depression or remorse (some primitive canine version of it, but still there). So sentience as a "fluid" quality? Perhaps. But is sentience necessary? Yeah. We have enough problems as it is relating to other society builders (namely ourselves); requiring the vast majority of people to stick their necks out for things that can't even understand when they are in trouble... not gonna happen.



otokage007

You seem pretty confident about what would or would not be done by a set of sentients you have never met. Can you really speak so confidently about humans you have never met? Are you really so confident that the slime people of Omicron Perseii 9 wouldn't do otherwise? Or how about the crystalline baby eaters? Or the giant floating gas bags... Societal pressures and thus selective features of alien races are going to be vastly different than our own.

Moreover: Are you seriously contending that you want to live in a society where no one would look out for you in the slightest? Because last I checked in order to enter into the social contract with others you actually have to pretend to be looking out for other people's interests. Any time you want to go it alone, you should feel free to let your neighbors know that the police shouldn't respond to any calls you make because other people shouldn't risk their lives to help you with your problems.

MTF

 

[otokage007]

You seem pretty confident about what would or would not be done by a set of sentients you have never met. Can you really speak so confidently about humans you have never met? Are you really so confident that the slime people of Omicron Perseii 9 wouldn't do otherwise? Or how about the crystalline baby eaters? Or the giant floating gas bags... Societal pressures and thus selective features of alien races are going to be vastly different than our own.

Moreover: Are you seriously contending that you want to live in a society where no one would look out for you in the slightest? Because last I checked in order to enter into the social contract with others you actually have to pretend to be looking out for other people's interests. Any time you want to go it alone, you should feel free to let your neighbors know that the police shouldn't respond to any calls you make because other people shouldn't risk their lives to help you with your problems.

Sorry for the ignorance but I still don't know where your answer contradicts mine. I care about others, and I don't get the alien point.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I would never put the life of any other species over my own life. Biodiversity and stuff is very important, but I would surely sacrifice it to save my life. Competitiveness and survival is something every living being share, they would never sacrifice themselves to save us, and neither would I. In fact, I think that idea is kinda weird and so "not-natural" that can only arise from a human brain.

So other species < My individual life. Biodiversity < My individual life. Are you suggesting this does not = large amounts of other lives could be sacrificed to ensure my continued existence?

Aliens would never sacrifice themselves to save us.

Idea of species altruism is so "unnatural" that it could only arise from a human brain (ignoring the possibility of aliens have modes of thought which would be "unnatural" by our standards).

Aliens could believe all sorts of things and might very well be willing to sacrifice themselves for another race they view as sentient. How exactly are you able to say otherwise?

MTF

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

Will would you? Take in to account what we have done and you judge logically if it would be the right thing to do. I'll think up a scenario to go along with this question.

I'm not one of the other sencient species', so of course I'd keep humanity alive.

 

[otokage007]

So other species < My individual life. Biodiversity < My individual life. Are you suggesting this does not = large amounts of other lives could be sacrificed to ensure my continued existence?

Yes. That's what I suggested.

Aliens would never sacrifice themselves to save us.

Idea of species altruism is so "unnatural" that it could only arise from a human brain (ignoring the possibility of aliens have modes of thought which would be "unnatural" by our standards).

Aliens could believe all sorts of things and might very well be willing to sacrifice themselves for another race they view as sentient. How exactly are you able to say otherwise?

Sure but I never spoke about aliens. I was speaking from the Earth context in which we live nowadays. I don't even know if aliens exist or if aliens are willing to sacrifice themselves, so I won't start a discussion about such a thing lol.

 

[corythesuit]

I'm a consequentialist so yeah I would totally do that.

 

[Draka]

Sure but I never spoke about aliens. I was speaking from the Earth context in which we live nowadays. I don't even know if aliens exist or if aliens are willing to sacrifice themselves, so I won't start a discussion about such a thing lol.

But isn't that what this thread basically refers to? It's not like you're going to find a trillion other sentient species on Earth now is it? So one would have to reach out to the possibility of life elsewhere. Of other beings perhaps like us. Intelligent and perhaps peaceful civilizations all around the galaxy or universe. What if, in our quest for the stars, we would do something to jeopardize a trillion other sentient species? In the grandest of schemes, are we that important to warrant risking all others?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I would never put the life of any other species over my own life. Biodiversity and stuff is very important, but I would surely sacrifice it to save my life. Competitiveness and survival is something every living being share, they would never sacrifice themselves to save us, and neither would I. In fact, I think that idea is kinda weird and so "not-natural" that can only arise from a human brain.

Seems pretty clear to me you were in fact making a statement about what aliens would or would not do since "other species" includes those not native to earth. Now if this was not your intent, then I can accept that, but even if that were true it is not extant fact. Dolphins save the lives of surfers at risk to themselves all the time. They will attack sharks by bumping into them and forcing them away. Sure it is generally beneficial for the dolphins, but they don't have to do so in such a way as to save us too. Other species can and do evolve social systems which can encompass other species.



And as soon as you actually try to practice "Massive amounts of other lives can be sacrificed to ensure my continued existence" within the confines of a social system (such as what humanity has) the other members of society reject you. You may very be afforded the freedom to choose to let a million people die to avoid your own death, but you have to accept the consequences of that decision. Those consequences include the families of those millions deciding that you were a selfish individual whose continued existence is unworthy of the human race.

MTF

 

[otokage007]

Seems pretty clear to me you were in fact making a statement about what aliens would or would not do since "other species" includes those not native to earth. Now if this was not your intent, then I can accept that, but even if that were true it is not extant fact. Dolphins save the lives of surfers at risk to themselves all the time. They will attack sharks by bumping into them and forcing them away. Sure it is generally beneficial for the dolphins, but they don't have to do so in such a way as to save us too. Other species can and do evolve social systems which can encompass other species.

I don't see the relation between the example and the topic. Humans also develop a lot of social systems which encompass other species and I'm not against that. However, I'm sure dolphins prefer humans to die than to die themselves.

And as soon as you actually try to practice "Massive amounts of other lives can be sacrificed to ensure my continued existence" within the confines of a social system (such as what humanity has) the other members of society reject you. You may very be afforded the freedom to choose to let a million people die to avoid your own death, but you have to accept the consequences of that decision. Those consequences include the families of those millions deciding that you were a selfish individual whose continued existence is unworthy of the human race.

Sure. However I think most of the human race wouldn't reject me but shut up nerviously instead, thinking that they would do exactly the same: sacrificing everything for their life's sake.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Would you wipe out humanity if it were to save a trillion other sentient species

Sometimes I have plans that I will.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I don't see the relation between the example and the topic. Humans also develop a lot of social systems which encompass other species and I'm not against that. However, I'm sure dolphins prefer humans to die than to die themselves.



Sure. However I think most of the human race wouldn't reject me but shut up nerviously instead, thinking that they would do exactly the same: sacrificing everything for their life's sake.

You have a truly naive cynicism about you which is a puzzling, rare, and interesting quality to have.


There are extremist humans who would rather kill humans than allow animals of any kind to die (some place greater value on animal life than human life). There are some humans (and these are more common) who would die in order to prevent a great loss of animal life. A more rational opinion (by my estimation) places lesser value on animal life, but a non-zero value. What this means is that if forced to choose between myself and the entire population of wolves on planet earth, then I am going to die and save the wolves.


Most of the human race would do nothing of the sort. Most of the human race wouldn't care. Lives in the modern world are distracted by things happening every where and such an action while newsworthy probably wouldn't overcome the seemingly inherent apathy that humans exhibit. But what matters most is the families of the millions of people you sacrificed to save yourself. They would straight kill you. And low and behold the apathy mentioned earlier guarantees that the rest of the world sits idly by while you are tortured for the rest of your natural existence by a mob of ****** off mothers and sons and daughters etc...



And more generally when a social system evolves to the point that it includes other species, then that means that moral weight is being granted to them (of some sort). If you actually have to cohabitate with something, then you must meet a threshold of respect for their being or you risk conflict/war. Humans are social animals and we actually need other members of a society in order to be sane.

You rejecting the need for others by ignoring their value means that others are under no impetus to infer you having value. Valueless things either get discarded or ignored. And those are not good options for living inside a social system.

MTF

 

[mistakenID]

What if C-A-T spelled "dog?"

 

[blackout]

Why don't a few of those three trillion sentient species
wipe us out themselves?

 

[Riverwolf]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

But the thing is, the many in this case ARE humans. Simple numbers: there's more of us than them; the species where there are more of them than us are consequently in no danger. Scientists are aware of environmental concerns, and do not experiment on species that are threatened. So, while I do wish we could come up with a better way to experiment safely to come up with various medicines (hopefully virtual reality will make that possible), we can't at the moment.

Plus, simple ethics: two wrongs don't make a right, and therefore saving others by killing their killers is wrong UNLESS there were ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER WAY. In real life, there are plenty of other ways that are being done. Animal rights is still VERY young, and it will take time to fully realize it.