If it’s “This thing is so great that even all of us humans agree that it killing us off is a good thing” then fine. But if it’s “Better according to an abstract concept (utility maximization) that only a minority of humans agree with, but fuck the rest of humanity, we know what’s better” then that’s not so good.
Sure, we’re happy that the dinosaurs were killed off given that is allows us to replace them. That doesn’t mean the dinosaurs should have welcomed that.
I meant better from the point of view of objective truth, but if you disagree that better in that way is meaningful, we can change it to this:
Something, let’s call it X, comes into existence and replaces humanity. It is better for X to be X, than for humans to be humans.
That is a meaningful comparison in exactly the same way that it is meaningful to say that being a human being is better (for human beings of course) than being a dinosaur is (for dinosaurs of course.)
That does not mean that humans would want X to come into existence, just as dinosaurs might not have wanted to be wiped out. But from a pretty neutral point of view (if we assume being human is better for humans than being a dinosaur is for dinosaurs), there has been improvement since the dinosaurs, and there would be more if X came into existence.
Also, there’s another issue. You seem to be assuming that humans have the possibility of not being replaced. That is not a real possibility. Believing that the human race is permanent is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking as believing that you have an immortal soul. You are going to die, and no part of you will outlive that; and likewise the human race will end, and will not outlive that. So the question is not whether humanity is going to be replaced. It is just whether it will be replaced by something better, or something inferior. I would rather be replaced by something better.
Since I said I would rather be replaced by something better, I meant from my point of view. But one or way another, since we will be replaced by something different, it will be better or worse from pretty much any point of view, except the “nothing matters” point of view.
Regarding your first 4 paragraphs: as it happens, I am human.
Regarding your last paragraph: yes most likely, but we can assess our options from our own point of view. Most likely our own point of view will include, as one part of what we consider, the point of view of what we are choosing to replace us. But it won’t likely be the only consideration.
“Better” from whose perspective?
If it’s “This thing is so great that even all of us humans agree that it killing us off is a good thing” then fine. But if it’s “Better according to an abstract concept (utility maximization) that only a minority of humans agree with, but fuck the rest of humanity, we know what’s better” then that’s not so good.
Sure, we’re happy that the dinosaurs were killed off given that is allows us to replace them. That doesn’t mean the dinosaurs should have welcomed that.
I meant better from the point of view of objective truth, but if you disagree that better in that way is meaningful, we can change it to this:
Something, let’s call it X, comes into existence and replaces humanity. It is better for X to be X, than for humans to be humans.
That is a meaningful comparison in exactly the same way that it is meaningful to say that being a human being is better (for human beings of course) than being a dinosaur is (for dinosaurs of course.)
That does not mean that humans would want X to come into existence, just as dinosaurs might not have wanted to be wiped out. But from a pretty neutral point of view (if we assume being human is better for humans than being a dinosaur is for dinosaurs), there has been improvement since the dinosaurs, and there would be more if X came into existence.
Also, there’s another issue. You seem to be assuming that humans have the possibility of not being replaced. That is not a real possibility. Believing that the human race is permanent is exactly the same kind of wishful thinking as believing that you have an immortal soul. You are going to die, and no part of you will outlive that; and likewise the human race will end, and will not outlive that. So the question is not whether humanity is going to be replaced. It is just whether it will be replaced by something better, or something inferior. I would rather be replaced by something better.
Better or inferior from which point of view?
Since I said I would rather be replaced by something better, I meant from my point of view. But one or way another, since we will be replaced by something different, it will be better or worse from pretty much any point of view, except the “nothing matters” point of view.
Regarding your first 4 paragraphs: as it happens, I am human.
Regarding your last paragraph: yes most likely, but we can assess our options from our own point of view. Most likely our own point of view will include, as one part of what we consider, the point of view of what we are choosing to replace us. But it won’t likely be the only consideration.
Sure. I don’t disagree with that.