From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 17:49:41 MST
At 08:55 AM 24/03/05 -0800, p3 wrote:
>I don't think I'd take oblivion for any purpose, even
>to save ten other people. Although I'd really love to
>be that philosophical, I just can't pay my life for
>ideals like utilitarianism.
For ten random other people, that's the correct evolved response.
However, would you die to save ten of your kids? (Or a mix of 10 kids and
The answer is much more likely to be yes.
>However, the question of oblivion to save every other
>human is different... since living without a single
>other person would mean death anyway (I don't think I
>alone could engender the apotheosis), it's really just
>a question concerning whether or not I really want
>those extra forty years... or however long my natural
>body has left.
There are certainly practical reasons for not wanting to be the last human
But then, "every other human" includes your entire family and (from a
genetic viewpoint) that's worth saving even if it costs your life.
An exception might be made if you had no co-lateral relatives at all.
BTW, take this business the way gene selection did, we have traits that
were selected because they *usually* worked better than alternative traits.
So expect exceptions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT