10 ms·

This is a good example of a very narrow human centric view that captures why its bad to try to maximize for particular made up metrics, such as human utility. I

This is a good example of a very narrow human centric view that captures why its bad to try to maximize for particular made up metrics, such as human utility. It also a wonderfully hare brained view of technolocial innovation that disregards the dark sides, material input, or externalities at all. Is this person an economist or something?

hazbot 3y ago
I think they are quite upfront about their values, and I suspect they would quite likely be OK with being labelled human-centric, as would I!
- Depurator 3y ago
  Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    What you described is still human centric. Nature has survived several extinction level events and I’m sure it will survive more. If humanity changes the current environment enough, then it will no longer be the once ideal environment to that continues to sustain humanity indefinitely. Going on a tangent, a lot of environmentalists have a marketing problem.
    - luckystarr 3y ago
      Nature will die with 100% certainty. That is a verified fact due to the coming life-cycle changes of our sun. Nothing will survive that. Only humans have a chance to save "nature" by bringing life along to the stars. Not sure if we will be able to pull it off, but I see no other option.
      - Thiez 3y ago
        Sure! On the other hand, if we kill ourselves off before that happens, for example by making the planet unlivable for humans, then that chance is also gone. Getting to that level of technological advancement is a marathon, not a sprint.
  - educaysean 3y ago
    So more humans is value neutral but more earth-like planets is value positive? Your standards seem bizarre. Can you please elaborate?
    - Depurator 3y ago
      As i replied to the sibling comment, coming from another species perspective it would be reasonable to assume that a world optimized to fulfill the need of another species, such as humans would be seen as negative. It's not like they can enact their discontent, so i would argue we have to account for other species as well when we remodel the natural world. Evolutionary adaptation takes a while, so its not nice to change things fast.
      - Sammi 3y ago
        Those that can adapt quickly will be quite happy about it. So who gets to set the metric?
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    You can't even define "degradation" without humans around. The planet itself doesn't care, nor does the fish. Extending human empathy to non-human processes is peak anthropocentrism.
    - vasco 3y ago
      I think you can define degradation. I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. I can measure this degradation in planets without humans or model out the degradation in a future where humans are extinct, and call certain situations objectively worse than others under that yardstick. Maybe I misunderstood because it seems you're claiming if there's no humans around it's impossible to model any phenomena, but we possess abstract thought to make up those situations and define things like degradation in the absence of humans.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        You, a human, can define degradation. So your prerequisite to degradation measurement requires humans?
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
        > I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. While the amount of biodiversity can be measured objectively, the notion of it being "good" is completely made up. You need humans to judge what's "good" and which means that for any "good" kind of future humans are essential and are more important than say biodiversity.
      - FredPret 3y ago
        If biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.
        CatWChainsaw 3y ago
xyzzy4747 3y ago
As a human, I have a human-centric mindset. I don’t want to live in the forest with rain filling up my mud floor. I like nice things.
- caskstrength 3y ago
  > As a human, I have a human-centric mindset. I don’t want to live in the forest with rain filling up my mud floor. I like nice things. I think the whole discussion is about which amount of humans on this planet would maximize the probability of having nice things for each individual. Certainly it would be hard for you to have nice things when there is only a million humans on Earth, but probably even more so if there is a trillion of them around.
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    Hopefully with a trillion people around we'll figure out a good source of energy that'll deliver both prosperity on earth and interplanetary travel
    - caskstrength 3y ago
      There would be some significant tradeoffs necessary for maintaining a trillion people population on Earth no matter the energy cost. Even if you assume cheap and abundant cold fusion energy source, living in mcmansion and eating avocado toasts with wild salmon is likely out of the question.
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
        I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question. And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.
        caskstrength 3y ago
shepherdjerred 3y ago
A human centric view is not unreasonable.
- yareal 3y ago
  Sure. And neither is a non human centric view. However, both seem unreasonable to the other.
- sph 3y ago
  That's not what they're saying. They are saying that focusing strictly on utilitarianism can prove to be unreasonable.
politelemon 3y ago
Looking at this, > Instead, I’m going to argue that a larger population is better for every individual—that there are selfish reasons to want more humans. I'd say yes, and that this person assumes we are all economists. The 'selfish' part also assumes that economy-boosting reasons for wanting more humans is what would make us indiidually happy

hazbot 3y ago

I think they are quite upfront about their values, and I suspect they would quite likely be OK with being labelled human-centric, as would I!

Depurator 3y ago
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chaostheory 3y ago
  What you described is still human centric. Nature has survived several extinction level events and I’m sure it will survive more. If humanity changes the current environment enough, then it will no longer be the once ideal environment to that continues to sustain humanity indefinitely. Going on a tangent, a lot of environmentalists have a marketing problem.
  - luckystarr 3y ago
    Nature will die with 100% certainty. That is a verified fact due to the coming life-cycle changes of our sun. Nothing will survive that. Only humans have a chance to save "nature" by bringing life along to the stars. Not sure if we will be able to pull it off, but I see no other option.
    - Thiez 3y ago
      Sure! On the other hand, if we kill ourselves off before that happens, for example by making the planet unlivable for humans, then that chance is also gone. Getting to that level of technological advancement is a marathon, not a sprint.
- educaysean 3y ago
  So more humans is value neutral but more earth-like planets is value positive? Your standards seem bizarre. Can you please elaborate?
  - Depurator 3y ago
    As i replied to the sibling comment, coming from another species perspective it would be reasonable to assume that a world optimized to fulfill the need of another species, such as humans would be seen as negative. It's not like they can enact their discontent, so i would argue we have to account for other species as well when we remodel the natural world. Evolutionary adaptation takes a while, so its not nice to change things fast.
    - Sammi 3y ago
      Those that can adapt quickly will be quite happy about it. So who gets to set the metric?
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  You can't even define "degradation" without humans around. The planet itself doesn't care, nor does the fish. Extending human empathy to non-human processes is peak anthropocentrism.
  - vasco 3y ago
    I think you can define degradation. I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. I can measure this degradation in planets without humans or model out the degradation in a future where humans are extinct, and call certain situations objectively worse than others under that yardstick. Maybe I misunderstood because it seems you're claiming if there's no humans around it's impossible to model any phenomena, but we possess abstract thought to make up those situations and define things like degradation in the absence of humans.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You, a human, can define degradation. So your prerequisite to degradation measurement requires humans?
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      > I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. While the amount of biodiversity can be measured objectively, the notion of it being "good" is completely made up. You need humans to judge what's "good" and which means that for any "good" kind of future humans are essential and are more important than say biodiversity.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      If biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.
      - CatWChainsaw 3y ago

xyzzy4747 3y ago

As a human, I have a human-centric mindset. I don’t want to live in the forest with rain filling up my mud floor. I like nice things.

caskstrength 3y ago
> As a human, I have a human-centric mindset. I don’t want to live in the forest with rain filling up my mud floor. I like nice things. I think the whole discussion is about which amount of humans on this planet would maximize the probability of having nice things for each individual. Certainly it would be hard for you to have nice things when there is only a million humans on Earth, but probably even more so if there is a trillion of them around.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  Hopefully with a trillion people around we'll figure out a good source of energy that'll deliver both prosperity on earth and interplanetary travel
  - caskstrength 3y ago
    There would be some significant tradeoffs necessary for maintaining a trillion people population on Earth no matter the energy cost. Even if you assume cheap and abundant cold fusion energy source, living in mcmansion and eating avocado toasts with wild salmon is likely out of the question.
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question. And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.
      - caskstrength 3y ago

shepherdjerred 3y ago

A human centric view is not unreasonable.

yareal 3y ago
Sure. And neither is a non human centric view. However, both seem unreasonable to the other.
sph 3y ago
That's not what they're saying. They are saying that focusing strictly on utilitarianism can prove to be unreasonable.

politelemon 3y ago

Looking at this, > Instead, I’m going to argue that a larger population is better for every individual—that there are selfish reasons to want more humans. I'd say yes, and that this person assumes we are all economists. The 'selfish' part also assumes that economy-boosting reasons for wanting more humans is what would make us indiidually happy