Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be redundant, but I really love this question.

From a purely theoretical point of view the answer should be simple and it seems like it should be “Sure, why not.” Yet, no one (few?) has answered that way. (Well, chez first said - “if its what everyone wants then sure go for it“, then he seems confused about the rules. I‘ll let him get on the same page before we go further.)

I hate to always bring religion into the framework, but here, how can one not be influenced by how one views life? The question seems like a litmus test for atheism to me. And I don’t see many posters passing. (Bad analogy I know.)

Answering the question from my own religious perspective - I don’t like the bargain. I’d pass. It is clearly not the path that I think My God has in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that athiests don't care about the future of humanity? It seems like an athiest would care more, since athiests believe that there is nothing else.

The extinction of the human race would be more consequential to an athiest.

Most Christians believe the extinction of the human race is God's will eventually, anyway.

Oh, maybe it is a litmus test for atheism.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that athiests don't care about the future of humanity? It seems like an athiest would care more, since athiests believe that there is nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am implying that I would find it odd if an atheist were to view the future of humanity of such import - relative to the OP‘s hypothetical. There are no consequences from the extinction of the human race. Humans would simply cease to exist, like the dinosaurs.

We in my religion consider life “sacred”. So, for us the question has a different context.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

is this just for the people currently living or for everybody until mankind dies?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that athiests don't care about the future of humanity? It seems like an athiest would care more, since athiests believe that there is nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am implying that I would find it odd if an atheist were to view the future of humanity of such import - relative to the OP‘s hypothetical. There are no consequences from the extinction of the human race. Humans would simply cease to exist, like the dinosaurs.

We in my religion consider life “sacred”. So, for us the question has a different context.

[/ QUOTE ]

To an athiest, the extinction of the human race would be the end of all human souls forever.

To a Christian, the eventual extinction of the human race is God's plan, anyway.

This issue should be really important in the big picture only for athiests. Unless you have some other, unspoken assumption about athiests?

[luckyme]

[ 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 ]

No.
No amount of years.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

No explanation?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping to save my illogical debates for SMP.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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."

It still seems like you didn't understand the question. Even if everyone who currently exists okays it, it will be imposed on the next 20 generations or so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone who exists has to okay it for themselves . There will be no future generations.

Misunderstanding each other this much aint easy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be generations until 500 years from now. Then in 600 years there will be no more mankind - no more generations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said in previous responses to DS that no number of generation is acceptable, not even a bazillion.

Except zero. If sterilness for happiness is what we all want then we do it to ourselves. No furture generations, no imposing nothing on anyone. I even dealt with the existing children problem by suggesting we change the sterilty to a natural phenomemna 'till they had all grown and then all deciding not to take the cure because it would reduce happiness.

Is that clear yet. help! nurse! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

No.
No amount of years.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
What about doing it to ourselves if everyone agreed. i.e. zero number of generations?

chez

[josh_x]

Glancing over this thread, i agree with everything Sephus has said, that the definition of the word happiness is at the crux of the issue, and fwiw i tend to define as you do, Sephus.

Examples: Would you rather be extremely happy and dumb, or not happy and smart? - i would prefer the former

Would you have your IQ lowered 95% in exchange for 1% more happiness? - intuitively i would think hell no, but logically with regards to my definition of happiness, then yes, i would.

Do you wish you enjoyed something that you currently consider utterly repulsive?