Children and hope for the future make people happy, I’d definately decline.
They have the ultimate high ground, if they wanted us dead we’d be dead.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s vote, but are you sure you’re comfortable describing things such as solving poverty, disease and famine as ‘short term desires’?
What exactly are the ‘long term interests’ of people not born yet?
I disagree that this is purely or even primarily an indicator of misanthropy. I suspect a factor in many a rejection vote is the ‘I’m all right Jack’ thing. i.e. how much do I really need to care about solving the big, painful problems that [people who are not me] are facing?
No such longevity is on offer here. Just a long-but-normal human lifetime that is not cut short by disease and not made unbearable by dementia or physical infirmity.
That’s why I said ‘humanely’, maybe they have moral problems with just dropping rocks on us or other overtly violent means.
I think any discussion on the future of the human species relies to a large extent on a persons opinion of humanity, and re the latter, thats why I mentioned people being selfish.
I think you can frame it either way. It’s misanthropic to not care about the future of humanity, but it’s also misanthropic to not care about the suffering of people alive now. It’s selfish to want your progeny to continue if it was at the expense of people’s quality of life and it’s selfish to want your quality of life to improve at the cost of future humanity.
Not fighting the hypothetical, but trying to understand it: if I have sex with my wife tonight, there’s an X percent chance of her getting pregnant. Are you saying the tech means there’d be an X-Divided-By-Twenty percent chance of her getting pregnant?
Yes, but in your scenario it comes down to one of two options, either humanity survives or it doesn’t, I’m not sure what pro-human sentiments would be OK with ending human existence.
I thought it was pretty obvious: everyone now alive gets a full, healthy, trouble-free life - How is it that you’re not seeing the solving of all current big human problems as a pro-human thing?
No. I’m saying that the breeding rate drops to a level that causes serious decline, no matter how much additional shagging and intervention is attempted.
I mean, I think there would be more sex anyway, once all diseases are cured, but it won’t result in enough babies, for reasons that it is pointless to try to explain.
Because…its at the cost of ending humanity as a species?!? That’s not a solution, its not even nearly a solution, it is at best a graceful means of suicide.
I didn’t claim it was a solution, but you’re weighing up one side against both. In this hypothetical, the cost of continuing humanity is that many people - people actually alive now - must suffer horribly and die before their time.
Definitely decline. Solving all our major problems would turn us into children. They should be intelligent enough to know what happens when children are given everything they want. I wouldn’t call that “benevolent.” Even without the 5% fertility rate, we might as well be extinct.
You’re stopping current suffering yes, but you’re also cutting off permenantly any pleasure, joy, discovery, art, science etc that humanity may experience in the future.
Part of life is that it contains both the bad and the good, the fact that you would apparently be willing to trade incalcuable future experiences for temporary pleasure is frankly astounding to me.
Well, I’d decline, but I’d also want to ask them how rare intelligent life is in the universe. They’re benevolent so they would be willing to answer it. If there are a lot of species that are a lot like us in this galaxy, then perhaps losing one wouldn’t be a big deal. That’s assuming we can trust the extra-terrestrials.
I don’t think this fights the hypothetical. I’m all for caring about the human endeavor but if it is sufficiently prevalent, I might not care so much about this particular human endeavor.
Also there are Buddhist overtones to the question. Enlightenment implies cessation.
I’ll presume that what you’re stating is that the treatment will render nineteen out of every twenty females sterile. So even if we relegate the remaining 1 woman to being a ‘brood mother’ we’re still severely limited to the number of new people that will be added to the population. And that the same 1 in 20 ratio will still apply to the newborns.
While the vast majority of voters are taking the high road here, how will that play out when it comes down to the actual vote? How many problems are we pushing off on future generations now? Global warming. Environmental pollutants. National debts. Probably hundreds of other issues that our children’s children will curse us soundly for.
People, as a whole, are shortsighted assholes.
Yeah, sign me up for that alien technology thing right now, please. I don’t see a down side. As alluded to: none of the people not yet born will lament not yet being born. And screw ‘em, if they wanted to be born so badly, they should have done so years ago.
Normally, I’d be a concerned about the fate of environmentalists, soldiers and policemen if pollution, war and crime are eliminated, but apparently the hypothetical takes care of them somehow, so I’m not going to worry about them.
Solving all the major problems will turn us into children? And, that’s a bad thing? Pbbbbbt! Puh-lease? Give me the hedonistic lifestyle of the Eloi without fear of being eaten by Morlocks and I’ll be your BFF (and I’ll tip you generously if you hook me up with one of those hot Eloi babes). And besides, we’ll find plenty of alternate endeavors to keep our brains stimulated—like trying to figure out which one of the Kardashians will flash their genitalia next.
The only ones who may suffer a bit are our children or grand-kids alive today who may want kids of their own, but probably won’t have any, unless they are in the lucky 5%. If your kid wants a kid, buy him a dog and tell him to make believe it’s a kid, like Paris Hilton does. The 5% of kids not yet born won’t even think about having kids because they will be born into a world with different priorities, none of which involves having kids. They will be mainly concerned with archiving mankind’s greatest achievements for the next apex species on Earth to laugh at.
Sure, it’s nice to imagine Earth being populated by intelligent beings far into the future. But, why do they need to be human? Being a speciist is nearly as repulsive as being a racist, pal. Personally, I think humans jumped the shark long ago, and it’s time to let the sharks take over. We reached our artistic zenith in 1824 when Beethoven completed his 9th symphony. It’s all Bieber and Gaga from now on. This is a good time to bow out gracefully as a species and deny the last couple hundred years of our existence.
I’m not a racist, nor a speciist. I am, however, a deoxyribonucleic acidist—as I suspect you are, too. I don’t want some alien species with weird genetic crap coursing through its green, slimy body taking over my Earth (we already have Paulie Shore). I want something with good ol’ DNA in its nuclei, and that makes nearly every other species on Earth a good potential candidate to evolve into the next apex species. We have more in common genetically with a tree than we are likely to have with any other alien species in the universe.
Trust me, except for a few spoiled cats and dogs, the rest of Earth’s biosphere isn’t going to cry when we leave. They’re going to party, sex it up, evolve and compete with each other to become the next big thing on this planet to deal with hemorrhoids and global warming.
The neat thing is that it’s going to take the next apex species a million or more years to get there, and that’s plenty of time for our archivists to re-write human history, leaving out all the bad Hitler-like things and just leave evidence of all the good things we achieved…like Beethoven’s 9th, and Boxcar Willie’s Train Medley. So, someday in the distant future, maybe it will be some Orangutanoman or Chimples who say, “man, those humans were some pretty cool bananas.” Who could want more than that?
Give me a hedonistic lifestyle, or give me death.
Forcibly sterilising people who don’t share your opinion against their will is a downside.
Unless it is possible for some people to use the technology without inflicting the side effects upon the rest of humanity, the technology being offered is unacceptable.
I would accept, then all the money previously spent on helping those issues will be invested in a space flight program, where we will find another race of beings who will tell us how to boost our rapidly declining fertility rate.
Whether we find one or not won’t matter. I’ll have saved an entire planet from suffering. Any potential lives don’t matter nearly as much as already born humans fighting horrible conditions. starving to death, living in places riddled with violent crime. I can’t understand why anyone would choose the alternative. So or race dies out in a few generations. Everyone dies happy.
Hmmm…nope, I’m not feeling the outrage.
I’m mean, isn’t it just as valid an argument to feel bad about not sharing peoples opinion who want the alien help and voting against it, while they suffer the effects of my choice? If we are to fight the hypothetical, we have to be able to make either choice without repercussions from those who choose differently.