No loyalty to the human race

Great Debates
21

Well, I didn’t mean it quite like that. There are probably a lot of other reasons that it would still make sense to work to prolong our species as long as we can.

I just mean that if we’re the only intelligent species, and we kick the bucket, then something unique to the universe is lost. But if we’re not the only one, then the concept of “intelligent life” is preserved, and just our specific flavor of it is lost.

It’s sort of like looking at the death of any particular human, vs the death of all humans. If some random human dies, is it a huge tragedy? Sure, and it’s devastating for his friends and family. But although it’s a big personal tragedy, it has little effect on the entire species. In the same way, I’m looking at the concept of intelligence as something worth preserving independent of its form. It would still be a huge tragedy if humanity dies out, and I’d still be pretty motivated to prevent it, but if there are many other intelligent life forms, the consequence to intelligent life overall is less severe.

I’m not gonna change side when the ET’s come and declare war :slight_smile:

–
peas on earth

22

Relieved to know you’re one of us…

I can see where you’re coming from, but don’t think it will go far with nurlman. If he’s not naturally interested in humans, I don’t expect him to be too concerned with the universe.

Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.

23

[Richard Dawkins hat ON]
OK, let’s have a little lesson from The Selfish Gene. From an evolutionary perspective <<ducking to avoid tomatoes>> all we are here to do is pass our genes on. The more, the better. It is to the advantage of our genes to help others that may be carrying those same genes. Therefore, our natural tendency is to adjust our level of help according to the degree of relatedness to the other person, i.e., I care more about my kids than I do about yours.

As an example of this, think back to that Potomac people-saving guy mentioned earlier. Better yet, a generic scenario where a person chooses to die in order to save X. Let’s say X is that person’s child. Popular opinion would be that the person did the right thing. In fact, had the person done otherwise, said person would be a horrible unloving parent. Now, let’s pretend X is a child of unknown parentage. In this case, we would think of the person as a hero that did a heroic thing, that we, perhaps, would not have done. After all, it’s to our advantage to have people like that around - one could save my kid for me without me having to risk my neck, thus preserving all known copies of my genes! Finally, let us imagine that X is a cage of beagle puppies. General response to the person’s death: nice person (after all, he probably would have saved my kid for me), but what a dumb thing to do!
It all depends on the genetic relationship.
[Richard Dawkins hat OFF]

Whew! Sorry. That went a lot longer than I expected. I hope my rambling eventually made it to where I was headed.

24

Do I feel an obligation to perpetuate the species? No, but who said you always have a choice in the matter. Am I the only one who notices stable 30 something adults trying for years to have children only to see them dispensed to 14 year-olds who’ve just lost their virginity?

“Don’t make me break out the razor!”

-Bill of Occam

25

This was something I thought of often in the “parental tax break” GD - if society is to function WELL, then yes, we must all feel the pull, call it “loyalty” if you will, to help our fellow humans. However, I’m wondering if we aren’t getting a “quality vs, quantity” debate vibe. Some societies I would feel “loyal” to - I’m just not sure that’s an appropriate word - others, I wouldn’t.

As for helping future generations as an expression of “loyalty”, I plan to IMPROVE things, not just INCREASE stuff (people, buildings, technology, etc.) Will I blindly shuffle along in the path of “We must survive and maintain society at all costs” rhetoric? Heck no.

26

I think someone pointed out that we may be confusing ‘loyalty to the human race’ with morality.

I believe our reason for existance is to be happy, and to learn as much as we can. I think these are goals of a different level than the standard eat/get shelter/screw instincts that every living thing has. Yes, there needs to be a certain amount of reproduction for the species to continue, but we’ve made so many of us that not only are we knocking off other species with our sloppiness, but we’re also in danger of causing a massive die-off of humans by ‘shitting in our own sleeping bags’, as my biology teacher used to say.

My point being, if there were a few thousand humans who were being regularly eaten by lions or what-have-you, I might feel a more urgent need to support ‘perpetuation of the species’.

However, since the perpetuation has (to me at least) clearly gotten out of hand, I feel we’re more in need of a ‘connection and the duty of fulfillment of obligations to the planet and their own biosphere as a whole’ as I re-stated it in the other thread. We’ve got the perpetuation thing down. We need to check our growth, or we’re no better than yeast.

This is merely another way in which I believe humans have at least the capacity to grow beyond our genetic coding. Sure, we all agree that natural aggression- the desire to beat to a pulp anyone who threatens you- is a ‘baser’ emotion, and we ‘civilized’ types learn to re-channel it in more healthy, productive ways. But when it comes to making more of us, the blinders come on.

I’m not in any way advocating that children be treated badly. However, ‘children’ as a meme is invoked with an almost sacred whisper- equated with precious treasures which must be protected/produced at any cost. Yet thousands of children die each day from starvation and other preventable causes. It seems to me that if we could have fixed the ‘distribution’ problems that many contend are the cause of this (usually as an argument against the idea that over-population is a problem) we might have already done so. It seems to me a better solution is to not make as many children.

Perhaps this makes me a traitor to humanity, but I believe I’m an advocate for the greater good, after all. I hope that at least addresses the morality part of this debate.

A far better explanation of this viewpoint can be read at www.vhemt.org - I don’t know if I believe the extinction of humanity is the best answer, but we definitely need to put the brakes on soon.

IMHO, as always.

27

what the hell are we talking about here? Two different things I think, making more babies and taking care of the ones that show up. Supporting people who have children is not the same as promoting unlimited reproduction.
As I’ve already said today, it’s enlightened self-interest to be concerned about the next generation. You can talk about loyalty and compassion (and I think you should) but it’s also just practical. Unless your ambition is to live in Hobbsian nightmare.