Originally Posted by Purandara88
Individuals are interchangeable, and extinction is a rather permanent phenomenon.
This does not even remotely answer my question. Neither does this...
Originally Posted by Purandara88
The only inherent value is living itself, and, in the long run, that's a question of species not individual survival. Any individual can be replaced, they are not necessary, but life in aggregate is irreplaceable. Once it's gone, that's it.
...or this...
Originally Posted by Purandara88
It's not that I don't care about individuals, it's that I care more about the whole. The life and comfort of one individual is of no real concern when weighed against the lives and comfort of all humans to come. The humane thing to do is not to focus obsessively on the individuals alive right now, but to take the steps necessary to ensure that the most humans live the best existence for the longest time. If that means trimming the population now to avoid crises later, so be it.
...or this...
Originally Posted by Purandara88
Not at all. Some level of suffering is unavoidable, even suicide has its costs. The idea is to sustain life and minimize suffering for as long as possible. It's not infinitely sustainable, but it's better than continuing to forge a path where we create a situation that is pure misery for 10 or 12 billion people, and wreak such havoc that there is no recovery, not only for humans, but for any other life.
WHY? You continue to avoid the larger question of why, in an empty, purely material world, life itself is a good thing. Why is it good to exist? Simply because you desire to? Give me a reason, devoid of emotion or instinct, why the existence of intelligent life (or any life, for that matter) is "good." Better yet, explain to me what your standard of "good" is, given that you do not believe in right and wrong. Good to whom? Some humans over others?
Originally Posted by Purandara88
Selflessness and nobility. I have it, most don't. It's a pity, really.
It would only be selfless and noble if you deemed yourself one of those who ought to die. Advocating the destruction of large swaths of people you've deemed useless does not involve any sacrifice on your part, and therefore is not selfless or noble.
Originally Posted by Purandara88
All goals are 'motivationless' in the sense that there is no larger meaning than existence itself. That doesn't mean we can't provide our own meaning and motivation.
If "existence itself" is a sensible goal, then from what grounds can you criticize people who wish to continue existing? You continually ascribe some mystical value to future life as if it is inherently superior to the lives being lived today. All this talk of "the species" ignores the fact that "the species" is comprised of individuals. What reason do you have for valuing a human life 5000 years from now over one today?
Originally Posted by Purandara88
'Humanity' is nothing special or sacred, it is life and nothing more. Why should I value a human life more than any other life? If a human lives and a million other creatures die so he can have suitable plastic baubles to fill his emptiness, why should I celebrate that?
If you find it entertaining, and truly believe the Universe is merely "emptiness," then why shouldn't you? You're trying to project morality in a very selective way, and it doesn't make sense.
You advocate an emotionless, rigidly logical approach when deciding how to handle humanity's problems (current or future), but you seem completely unaware of the fact that your rationale is just as emotional as the "pity" you deride. What logical reason do you have for wanting to prevent human suffering after you've died? I can see none.
Originally Posted by Purandara88
Perhaps your nature is so weak that it 'screams' when faced with the hard choices, but my constitution isn't so limited. Necessity must trump emotion. Otherwise, we will fail those who follow us.
But you are not trumping your emotions. You're merely choosing one instinct (and one generation) over another. You've yet to explain why it is "weak" to value those who live today, but "selfless and noble" to value those who do not yet exist.