This sounds individually (which is still an option), but the question is about collectively.
The question is zooming out from the humanity itself, and view from out-of-human kind of angle. I think it is an interesting angle, and remind ourselves that many things we do, may not be as altruistic as we thought.
Also, I think maybe that would mean suffering risks would need more attention.
Ultimately, my answer to this might be—morally humans do not need to last forever, but we are self preservation focused, and that is okay to pursue and practice altruism whenever we can either individually or collectively; but when there is conflict against our preservation, how to pursue this “without significantly harming others” is tricky,
I think it is an interesting angle, and remind ourselves that many things we do, may not be as altruistic as we thought.
What’s altruistic about wanting humanity to survive and flourish? Why would it be? The more humanity flourishes, the more the individuals that make up humanity do. That is what humanity flourishing is.
ETA: The flourishing will be unevenly distributed, as of old.
I don’t think that is only the viewpoint of the dead (it also seems very individually focused/personal rather than collective specifies experiment/exploration focused). This is about thinking critically and from different perspectives for truth finding, which is related to definition of rationality on lesswrong (the process of seeking truth).
I am operating on the assumption that many of us seek true altruism on this platform. I could move this to the effective altruism platform.
Well, why want anything? Why not just be dead? Peace of mind guaranteed for ever.
This sounds individually (which is still an option), but the question is about collectively.
The question is zooming out from the humanity itself, and view from out-of-human kind of angle. I think it is an interesting angle, and remind ourselves that many things we do, may not be as altruistic as we thought.
Also, I think maybe that would mean suffering risks would need more attention.
Ultimately, my answer to this might be—morally humans do not need to last forever, but we are self preservation focused, and that is okay to pursue and practice altruism whenever we can either individually or collectively; but when there is conflict against our preservation, how to pursue this “without significantly harming others” is tricky,
None of us would last very long without the rest.
Sounds like the viewpoint of the dead.
What’s altruistic about wanting humanity to survive and flourish? Why would it be? The more humanity flourishes, the more the individuals that make up humanity do. That is what humanity flourishing is.
ETA: The flourishing will be unevenly distributed, as of old.
I don’t think that is only the viewpoint of the dead (it also seems very individually focused/personal rather than collective specifies experiment/exploration focused). This is about thinking critically and from different perspectives for truth finding, which is related to definition of rationality on lesswrong (the process of seeking truth).
I am operating on the assumption that many of us seek true altruism on this platform. I could move this to the effective altruism platform.