Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[Zele]

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.

[Gobgogbog]

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

[HedCec]

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".

[RJT]

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

[Piers]

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?

[tame_deuces]

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.

[Magic_Man]

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.

[ALawPoker]

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.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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?