Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[mvdgaag]

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!

[Al68]

[ 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.

[Piers]

[ 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.

[koolmoe]

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.

[Sandwich]

[ 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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[JimDrang]

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.

[tipperdog]

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.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
whatever other adjectives you think are important

[/ QUOTE ]

immortal?

leaponthis

[leaponthis]

[ 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