Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

And again what I mean by that is a question that will shed light on how you approach many questions. And a question that can't really be debated logically.

Suppose there was some scientific procedure that could be implemented that would make everyone on Earth far happier, richer, fulfilled, pleasant, smart, and whatever other adjectives you think are important. There is only one downside.

500 years from now all humans will become sterile. Nor can they be cloned. Humanity ends about 100 years later. Should the procedure be done? If yes, how much smaller than 500 would you accept? If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK? Also if you answered no only because you think God would be angry, what would your answer be if he assured you he wouldn't be?

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I find the idea of humanity coming to an end terrifying. The idea that a procedure could make me happy and fullfilled despite causing our extinction, is almost as bad.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
And again what I mean by that is a question that will shed light on how you approach many questions. And a question that can't really be debated logically.

Suppose there was some scientific procedure that could be implemented that would make everyone on Earth far happier, richer, fulfilled, pleasant, smart, and whatever other adjectives you think are important. There is only one downside.

500 years from now all humans will become sterile. Nor can they be cloned. Humanity ends about 100 years later. Should the procedure be done? If yes, how much smaller than 500 would you accept? If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK? Also if you answered no only because you think God would be angry, what would your answer be if he assured you he wouldn't be?

[/ QUOTE ]
if its what everyone wants then sure go for it. If this sterility is being imposed on people then no. The number of years makes no difference to me.

chez

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I realized many years ago that it doesn't matter what anybody does, because in some point in time we, everything we know, and all records of everything we know will just become stardust.

Yet, I can't explain why I live my life like it matters. Even though I've observed that people don't really care in the final analysis about anything but themselves. Actually, I can't say in the final analysis, as I haven't come to that part of my life yet. But life goes on, or I should say the universe goes on, and we all just adapt to our surroundings. When it comes right down to it, does anybody really care about the axe murderer, holocaust, or if the woman next door was raped? And I mean beyond how it will effect them personally?

There's something inside us, instinct perhaps, that makes us care about our families, especially our offspring. But I suspect that feeling or concern wears off as time goes on, and as each generation becomes reality. A parent may care about their child, but as much when the child is 40 as when it was 4? As much for a grandchild as their child? How about a great grandchild, or a great great grandchild? Perhaps contemplating one's demise effects caring about other people to a point. I don’t have any offspring myself, but I suspect, and have observed, that the farther you get from the person in question, the less they will care.

So, speaking on behalf of the human race, 200 years will be more than enough for most people not to care about the future and to take the instant gratification now. Many will rationalize it by saying that we'll come up with a solution in the future so that the consequence doesn't happen, or that those who point out the consequence are just being alarmists (global warming anyone?). And that's even if there is no question about it in most minds.

So to answer your question, should the procedure be done and how many years will the human race need to continue to make it worth it? I don't know, I don't want to put myself in the position of having to make that decision, stardust or not.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I have a pretty strong negative reaction to this, though as you said I'm not sure it's particularly logical. I think if you picked a timescale such that, somehow or another, I could make a reasonable estimate that humanity would be less than 5% (why 5%? I dunno. Had to pick something.) likely to survive that long, then I would go for it.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

"if its what everyone wants then sure go for it. If this sterility is being imposed on people then no. The number of years makes no difference to me."

chez

The sterility IS being imposed. On people who do not yet exist. Even if everyone wants the procedure now, there is no doubt many will wish it hadn't been done 470 years from now.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
"if its what everyone wants then sure go for it. If this sterility is being imposed on people then no. The number of years makes no difference to me."

chez

The sterility IS being imposed. On people who do not yet exist. Even if everyone wants the procedure now, there is no doubt many will wish it hadn't been done 470 years from now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay see the point now. Everyone who currently exists would have to want to be sterile and it would have to be reasonable to believe that existing children would also wish to have had that decision made for them which seems unlikely.

but its not because of any importance atached to the survival of the species. If the sterily occured naturally and everyone was happy with it for long enough to mean there were no children then I see no issue with everyone agreeing not to bother with a cure.

chez

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

500 years is too short compared to the amount of time human civilization has already existed.

2000 years is acceptable - that gives humanity a good length of time to enjoy this new found happiness. A good deal for many future generations I'd say.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

Chez I am starting to worry about you. Is my English that bad? The sterility kicks in twenty generations from now.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I'd have to say no. It seems so ingrained into all of our being that we need to ensure our continued survival and produce offspring that short of something supernatural I wouldn't be willing to reconsider.

If we got an extremely long lifespan I might reconsider.
If it was reasonable to assume we would have a shot at continuing to exist in some other way (medical breakthrough, ai breakthrough, etc) then I might reconsider as well.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chez I am starting to worry about you. Is my English that bad? The sterility kicks in twenty generations from now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I got that, I'm against it even if its in a bazillion generations. Its only okay if everyone who currently exists okays it. Then there will be no future generations for it to be imposed on.

(I'm more than happy to inflict all sorts of horrors on people will will never exist. Damn now I'm want to sing Black Sabbath songs and that's inflicting a horror on people who do exist.)

chez

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

Years to sterility don't matter nearly as much as the degree of increased happiness, etc. I'm not sure how to quantify that stuff, but off the cuff I'll take the deal for a "quantum leap". Let's say a level of happiness that we can't currently describe in English.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

Since I'd be happier if the procedure was done, I guess I'd be for it. Even if it was this generation.

The answer must be yes - always.
 

The question asked is:
Do you want to make all people happier?
Then you stipulate that the end of mankind in this case will be in roughly 600 years.

My argument is simply that given the fact that the overall happiness was increased, the end of mankind must be irrelevant. Even though (for obvious reasons) most people likely finds the end of mankind to be something negative, the fact of this question is that everybody was made far happier by some scientific procedure. So this means that even if we set the number of years until sterility kicks in to 0, the answer must be yes, because the scientific procedure guarantees increased happiness, which means that whatever it is this procedure is doing, mankind finds more happiness from this, than sorrow from being sterile.

Simply put, there is no way any logical rational person ever can say anything else than yes to this question. If you disagree, you are simply not logical. As David points out - this question "can't really be debated logically".

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

This is a great question, David. I hope you get some good discussion going.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

No, I would leave it to my successor as world tyrant. I prefer the idea of the human race surviving than lots of other people getting happier.

Well maybe if it exceeds the lifetime of the universe.

What if immortality was thrown in?

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

No because I don't set people's happyness above the survival of the human race. History is one of the most powerful means of reallife storytelling we got, I don't want what we have made and learned to be lost for some egoistical whim regarding happyness.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I guess I am the only selfish bastard on this forum. The future 500 years from now really has no impact on me whatsoever. If the procedure is making me and everyone else I care about "far happier," then I say go for it.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I'd want it, and you could bring the 500 years all the way down to zero and I'd still want it (assuming this still resulted in a happier life, despite not being able to reproduce).

The human race evolved to this point by an animals' innate desire to do what makes them happy. The notion of it becoming extinct through the same process does not scare me.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find the idea of humanity coming to an end terrifying. The idea that a procedure could make me happy and fullfilled despite causing our extinction, is almost as bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike (and anyone else who shares this sentiment),

Would the idea of humans evolving into something that is classified as a different species also scare you?

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

Assuming our goal is happyness (not individually, but for mankind).
If overall human happyness could be measured and positive happyness would be achieving the goal while negative would be failing to achieve this goal.
Than time*happyness enjoyed (or the surface under the happyness-time curve) would be the total amount of produced happyness...

If you think we should not be put out of our misery (so we are living more moments above the 0 line than below) there's clearly less enjoyed happyness when it stops in 500 years (although there is more happyness to enjoy during these years, except on the end?) compared to the thousands of years of being just a little happy.

If the goal is happyness for this generation, bring it on!

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
"if its what everyone wants then sure go for it. If this sterility is being imposed on people then no. The number of years makes no difference to me."

chez

The sterility IS being imposed. On people who do not yet exist. Even if everyone wants the procedure now, there is no doubt many will wish it hadn't been done 470 years from now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be impossible that all living humans could ever agree to anything. So this procedure would not be performed on all unless it was forced on all. And would this procedure be performed on people or the planet or what?

If this were a medical procedure, the answer is a no brainer. No way should anyone be forced to do it against their will.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this were a medical procedure, the answer is a no brainer. No way should anyone be forced to do it against their will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its more likely to be introducing some form of active agent into the environment, maybe airborne bacteria or something.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

It seems to me that mankind makes all sorts of shortsighted decisions for far less benefit than that posited by David's proposition.

For example, environmentalists might argue that we are threatening the survival of all life as we know it on this planet for the convenience of being able to drive our SUV's down to the corner convenience store. There are many more examples of the human behavior of trading short term gain for long term disaster (Anyone care for a cigarette?).

In light of this, I think I would be disingenuous to answer in any way other than yes to the procedure, and I don't think the time frame has to be any longer than my lifetime.

Re: The answer must be yes - always.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question asked is:
Do you want to make all people happier?
Then you stipulate that the end of mankind in this case will be in roughly 600 years.

My argument is simply that given the fact that the overall happiness was increased, the end of mankind must be irrelevant. Even though (for obvious reasons) most people likely finds the end of mankind to be something negative, the fact of this question is that everybody was made far happier by some scientific procedure. So this means that even if we set the number of years until sterility kicks in to 0, the answer must be yes, because the scientific procedure guarantees increased happiness, which means that whatever it is this procedure is doing, mankind finds more happiness from this, than sorrow from being sterile.

Simply put, there is no way any logical rational person ever can say anything else than yes to this question. If you disagree, you are simply not logical. As David points out - this question "can't really be debated logically".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The end of mankind is certainly not irrelevant, because we, as human beings have it ingrained within us to 'propagate the species'... it is so deeply ingrained that my very strong reaction to DS's question is a resounding NO... I would never want to make that "deal." How can it be "right" for someone today to make such a decision about something so ingrained (so "human") for ALL human beings in existence generations from now? It is not.

A step further.
 

Shoot, forget about human sterility... I wouldn't even take this deal if it meant ONLY MY OWN offspring would become sterile in 600 years.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

This reminds me of the speech Joe Rogan gave about DMT. How we are just complicated bacteria and our only goal is to procreate for some greater cause somewhere down the line.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8 around the 6 minute mark

Don't think humans would ever go for anything that involved ending the species unless we were somehow convinced it accomplished the "ultimate goal" whatever that is.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

There are several different questions here, each of which raise a different moral issue.

1. Should the procedure be done?
No. We have a moral responsibility to protect our planet and its resources for future generations. Terminating those future generations is a gross abrogation of that responsibility, and it's shocking that so many posters would entertain the notion.

2. Regardless of whether it "should" be done, do "you" have the authority to make such a decision. It is unclear if David is asking this question, but let's pretend so. Say some alien race vists you in your house during a break in Sunday Stars tourney and says "you must choose for all of humanity whether we should implement this procedure, and you must decide within the next five minutes."
The answer is even more clearly no. You have no authority -- moral, political, or otherwise -- to make a controversial decision affecting all of humanity. You must thank the aliens politely and inquire instead if they can use their magical powers to help you reach the final table.

3. If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK.
The answer is no. It is not a numbers game. A possible excepton (as suggested by poster Piers) would be if the number were so large that it was practially irrelevant, but that is a nit-pick workaround and is clearly not the thrust of David's question.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
whatever other adjectives you think are important

[/ QUOTE ]

immortal?

leaponthis

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should the procedure be done? If yes, how much smaller than 500 would you accept? If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK? Also if you answered no only because you think God would be angry, what would your answer be if he assured you he wouldn't be?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer as in all poker related questions is it depends. Perhaps our scientists could predict that man would become extinct within 500 years anyway. That might be a reason to proceed. I would ask what their best guess was for man's predicted and inevitable extinction and evaluate the question then.

Basically we would be making decisions not just for "people" that do not exist yet but for our "children" and their children, our heirs. For those of you that do not see the connection between this question and reality you need to read up on global warming. Watch Al Gore's video -An Inconvienient Truth. We have already given our scientists the go ahead to proceed by not politically telling them to "Hey, hold on a minute".

I've had a discussion like this with my son who is by my account a strict environmentalist. He is not for uncontrolled scientific advancement. I , on the other hand, have always been for progress through technological advances. Now I'm not so sure. Plus I do not agree with Sklansky that this question cannot be debated logically unless he only considers a mathematical answer as logical.

Once you consider the effect on your "loved" ones, born or unborn, it has a dramatic influence on the way you view things. If you do not "love" then this is an easy question to answer.

leaponthis

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

No, at any length of time.

With the original question, the lunacy of this choice would be apparant in approximately 450 years.

Re: The answer must be yes - always.
 

How do you take into account the fact that in .... say 450 years, with doom impending, it is likely that humanity would realize what a truly stupid mistake they had made.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

people in this thread are obviously struggling with the definition of the word "happiness."

for me, "i wouldn't push the button" is the same as "i would be happier not pushing it," which contradicts the hypothetical.

almost everyone in this thread is saying they prefer to be less happy, because they believe they "value" things other than happiness. in my opinion, "concern for things outside of yourself" is really just a connection between your own happiness and other things.

so, if happiness isn't "the result of the fulfillment of our desires," what is it?

Re: The answer must be yes - always.
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you take into account the fact that in .... say 450 years, with doom impending, it is likely that humanity would realize what a truly stupid mistake they had made.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

Re: The answer must be yes - always.
 

[ QUOTE ]
if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Faustian bargain is always a sucker bet, even if generations down the line have to pay the price.

Re: The answer must be yes - always.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if this idea makes you unhappy, it will be more than counterbalanced by the happiness that the button brings you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Faustian bargain is always a sucker bet, even if generations down the line have to pay the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can it be a sucker bet if it makes me happier?

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

Sephus:

If you personally could find a drug that would make you orgasmatically ecstatic for the remainder of your long life (and for our first 100 callers, we'll throw in an additional 20 years of life expectancy) but the price is that you never leave the institution to which you've been committed (though to be fair, you won't even know you're there), would you take it?

I wouldn't.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sephus:

If you personally could find a drug that would make you orgasmatically ecstatic for the remainder of your long life (and for our first 100 callers, we'll throw in an additional 20 years of life expectancy) but the price is that you never leave the institution to which you've been committed (though to be fair, you won't even know you're there), would you take it?

I wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

and when you say "i wouldn't," it's because (as i said in my original post) we disagree about what the word "happy" (in this case ecstatic) means.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

I'm not sure we disagree on the definition.

I just think that at times there are more important things than being happy.

btw, I'm not being critical of your choices, I'd just choose differently.

Re: Yet Another \"Axiom\" Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that at times there are more important things than being happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

then we do disagree on the definition. things are or aren't important to you because of how they affect your happiness (or how you perceive them to do so).

edit: if you begin to define happiness as "the thing that results when i get what i want" then you will see why i'm saying you can't "prefer to be less happy."