So the question is really whether “boot stamping on a human face forever” is more or less worthy of being called a ‘hell world’ than “humanity is destroyed, replaced by trillions of alien slaves”.
I don’t consider it any worse than humanity being destroyed and replaced by nothing. Indeed I consider it marginally better in the same way I would consider it marginally better for mankind to go extinct without destroying the Earth’s ecosystem than all life on Earth being extinguished. Also in the em scenario we get a least a few if not all humans living through finite (perhaps a few centuries, perhaps a few millennia or even a million years, it is hard to tell) era of plenty.
So the question is really whether “boot stamping on a human face forever” is more or less worthy of being called a ‘hell world’ than “humanity is destroyed, replaced by trillions of alien slaves”.
I’ll have to think about that one.
I don’t consider it any worse than humanity being destroyed and replaced by nothing. Indeed I consider it marginally better in the same way I would consider it marginally better for mankind to go extinct without destroying the Earth’s ecosystem than all life on Earth being extinguished. Also in the em scenario we get a least a few if not all humans living through finite (perhaps a few centuries, perhaps a few millennia or even a million years, it is hard to tell) era of plenty.
On this we agree. I don’t see that it answers the question, though.
Actually it does. Hell world implies creatures suffering greatly. No one would call a world where humans just went extinct a hell world.
Why call a world where humans go extinct and aliens live a hell world?