It doesn’t seem to me that, unless we’re putting humanity’s self-interest in conflict with some other hypothetical alien civilization, that the rest of existence has an opinion on humanity’s continued existence. The universe, insofar as we know, is pretty indifferent to the state it’s in, and the only frame of reference we have in terms of values to decide whether or not humanity should continue is… well, humanity’s own myriad value systems, which, unless fully misanthropic, generally have a group of humans, or humanity overall’s continued prosperity as a good as a fundamental of the value system.
I am not sure if that is a good reasoning, though I am also looking for reasoning/justification. The reasoning here seems to say—animals cannot talk our languages, and so it is okay to assume they do not want to survive (this is assuming the existence of humans naturally has conflict with the other specifies).
The reasoning I think I am trying to accept is that by nature it seems we want to self-preserve, and maybe unfortunately many altruism we want to do have non-altruism roots, which maybe be fine/unavoidable. Maybe it would be good to also consider the earth as a whole/expanding moral circles (when we can), and less exhibiting human arrogance. Execution wise, this may be super hard, but I think “thinking” wise, there is value in recognizing this aspect.
It doesn’t seem to me that, unless we’re putting humanity’s self-interest in conflict with some other hypothetical alien civilization, that the rest of existence has an opinion on humanity’s continued existence. The universe, insofar as we know, is pretty indifferent to the state it’s in, and the only frame of reference we have in terms of values to decide whether or not humanity should continue is… well, humanity’s own myriad value systems, which, unless fully misanthropic, generally have a group of humans, or humanity overall’s continued prosperity as a good as a fundamental of the value system.
I am not sure if that is a good reasoning, though I am also looking for reasoning/justification. The reasoning here seems to say—animals cannot talk our languages, and so it is okay to assume they do not want to survive (this is assuming the existence of humans naturally has conflict with the other specifies).
The reasoning I think I am trying to accept is that by nature it seems we want to self-preserve, and maybe unfortunately many altruism we want to do have non-altruism roots, which maybe be fine/unavoidable. Maybe it would be good to also consider the earth as a whole/expanding moral circles (when we can), and less exhibiting human arrogance. Execution wise, this may be super hard, but I think “thinking” wise, there is value in recognizing this aspect.