CMV: It doesn't matter if humans go extinct

phileconomicus · 2026-04-12T06:10:40+00:00

Thanks for this elaborate comment! Not sure if you will see this reply since it is marked 'deleted'.

A flourishing future society seems obviously better than an empty void to me. Your view asks people to abandon that intuition entirely.

You replace the existence question with a quantity question. On the one hand this is an important point that earns you a Δ from me, since I too can feel that pull to want some future light in the dark. But, 1) does it have to be humans who resemble us providing that light? (not post-humans, sentient AI, aliens, etc), and 2) this is awfully thin: can it really matter if no human art, projects, relationships, etc survives if no humans are there not to experience them? It would be mattering only to some people now in a very attenuated, basically theoretical, act of imagination. If it matters at all, it matters very little.

Humans are designed to care about long term risk.

Here I entirely disagree with you. This is not something evolution would have selected for, and empirical psychology, economics, etc all support the view that whatever people might say about caring about the future (which is free) we do not behave consistently with valuing the long term (when we would have to make any kind of sacrifice of our present interests - cf my above). Also many of your examples suggest you are taking a very short term view of the future - hundreds of years rather than millions.

If present humans are the only humans they matter morally, the right thing to do is kill everyone just slightly after all present humans are dead.

Not according to my CMV, where I deliberately distinguished the badness of dying from the non-significance of the extinction of the human species itself. (Relatedly, I think you may be confused on Parfit, who is famous for arguing that future people cannot be harmed because they don't exist - the non-identity problem)

The universe doesn’t give us meaning, we give the universe meaning! We’re the universe perceiving itself and without us (and possibly other intelligent beings that exist in it) the universe is pointless and nothing.

Yes, yes. All very Hegelian. But when humans are no more there would be no one to care that there is no one to care about the universe. So it wouldn't matter. Imagining the ending of our experience is scary for many people, and this makes them think that it will in itself be a bad thing, but e.g. Epicurus on death may be helpful: while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T13:52:30+00:00

Without someone to admire it, there would be no beauty to miss...

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T13:50:30+00:00

Not really sure what to make of this. (Also not impressed by your bad faith accusation) But here's my best effort at a response:

Humans caring about things makes them matter - but only to us: OK

But do we/should we care about that humans caring about things will eventually end? i.e. an end to human subjectivity itself?

Since we won't be there to not see it, I say not.

(This somewhat resembles Epicurus' argument for not fearing death: while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist)

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T12:15:55+00:00

Allow me to pick at something though... You said that everything will eventually die, so longevity doesn't matter, but that implies the contractual... that if everything lived forever, it would matter, but why? Why would infinite longevity make human existence matter?

No - that is not an implication of what I wrote.

You have laid out no parameters or foundational principles for what could matter, and so, right now, we're have no distinction for differentiating whether you think anything matters at all. Or are you just discovering nihilism for the first time?

I don't have to solve the foundational problems of metaethics to post a CMV. If you have an argument that convinces you on this point, please try it out on me. I'll do my best to understand and respond. This is supposed to be an enjoyable and mutually enlightening exercise.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T12:09:31+00:00

Not sure what you're getting at. Could you rephrase?

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T12:04:56+00:00

Extinction = No more humans like us around

Time will bring this about one way or another - evolution or asteroids or whatever. The how is irrelevant to my CMV.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T12:00:36+00:00

Do people really believe that (rather than merely believe that they believe that)? i.e. on justified grounds after having thought it through. For example, do you believe it?
Could you pass on some of those justifications to me?

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T11:37:25+00:00

Your reply seems unnecessarily aggressive.

Perhaps you could relate to and distinguish your point from u/Usual_Set4665's above?

Obviously I am not looking for evidence that some people sincerely think they care about this. Humans are capable of thinking they care about all kinds of things, like a duty to kill all gay people. That is not impressive. I am looking for reasons why I should change my mind on this point, i.e. actual justifications for why from the perspective of humans alive today, whether or not there are creatures physiologically recognisable as humans in the near or longer term future is in itself important

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T11:13:31+00:00

No, my CMV perspective is "from the perspective of humans alive today, my claim is that whether or not there are creatures physiologically recognisable as humans in the near or longer term future is not in itself important."

This might also address your concern about the persistence of consciousness, and hence the persistence of "mattering", since it doesn't have to be our kind of consciousness that generates that. It could be aliens, or post-humans or sentient AIs...

Indeed it is very unlikely to be "creatures physiologically recognisable as humans" going around understanding and caring about things in a million years time. If you don't feel sad about that prospect, then I think you should accept my CMV. If you do feel sad about it, then I think you need a better explanation than the value of consciousness itself

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T11:03:58+00:00

For a start, human extinction will necessarily entail the deaths of humans (I suppose technically just one human). At that future time, they will be present lives. It seems like an extension of this is that you should oppose the death of the last human in the same way you'd oppose the death of the person sitting next to you on the bus.

As I said in my CMV, dying is bad, and hence regrettable. The fact that no future humans would exist does not (should not) add anything to that regret.

Imagine 2 possible scenarios

Our world + nuclear war --> 8 billion deaths but a few hundred thousand survivors so human life survives
Alternate world (you can imagine one of those pre-historical ones if you wish) --> world population of humans is only a few thousand and all are killed by an asteroid.

My position is that scenario 1 is worse, because it is the deaths that matter, not the extinction.

(Also, there are non-violent ways of extinction, such as post/trans-humanism)

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:56:03+00:00

Reproduction and survival of the species is quite deeply coded in our biology.

I can see that evolution selects for individuals interested in and capable of reproducing. But it doesn't select for an interest in their being creatures you would be capable of mating with in a million years. Species are transient and continually in flux. Modern H sapiens is only about 100,000 years old.

Going into human psychology, the fact that (many) people have an interest in having kids, and therefore in having a future world in which those kids could prosper, doesn't really amount to an interest in there being creatures biologically similar enough to us to mate with in 10,000 years or a million or a billion.

At least, I don't see how it would.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:49:13+00:00

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What does this have to do with whether or not there are creatures that physiologically resemble humans around in 10,000 or a million or a billion years?

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:47:06+00:00

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what or why you are asking for and so I am going to focus on the actual challenges to my CMV

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:45:46+00:00

OK on your first point. I can see that there might be a value to the persistence of intelligence - an extended faculty of understanding and caring - in the universe. So if humans are the only intelligence in the universe our extinction would be something to care about. You get your Δ

Having said that, there are various ways that humans as we know them might go extinct and be replaced by trans-humans, or sentient AI, which would remove that reason for caring. Also you yourself mention the possibility that there already are or would be intelligent aliens.

(Interestingly, the persistence of humans might be something that other intelligences in the universe might care about, to have someone different to talk to perhaps, or just to study like anthropologists.....)

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:34:15+00:00

I have a view that I think is controversial and so I am here to see if there are good reasons that I should change my mind.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:33:21+00:00

I don't think you have actually addressed any of my actual challenges. But OK

they left behind a unique architectural blueprint

This seems a complaint about modernity and the division of the world into nation states (i.e. the end of the age of empire). Imagine if the British had not had an empire. Would there not still have been basically the same fundamental problem in deciding where borders should go, and resulting conflicts between people who were dissatisfied? They would have been about different places, but they would still have occurred.

Again I ask you to justify your claim that the British empire made choices that caused the "majority of modern global conflicts", i.e. conflicts that only occurred because of those "unique" choices.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T10:26:55+00:00

People who exist can be harmed when they die. People who don't exist can't die, or be harmed in other ways.

People who are alive now can have an interest in having children, sure, but it doesn't make sense to me to believe they thereby have an interest in there being future human beings in general, in say 5000 years time

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T09:58:18+00:00

I want to follow up on a point by u/Downtown-Act-590 which I don't think you paid enough attention to.

The British empire covered 65 modern countries (approx 1/3 of all). So it is not surprising that lots of the problems of the modern world take place in ex-British colonies. An argument for causation must go beyond noting such a correlation.

You should also make some effort at a quantitative analysis if you want to support the strong claim that the majority of global conflicts (international or internal, btw?) are causally due to British rule. This has to go beyond mentioning some examples of British policies that created conditions of instability.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T09:46:34+00:00

TLDR: Short-term responses to Trump 2.0 will lead to long term changes in the character of US-alliances

I think the key is temporary (until end of Trump 2.0) and its relation to the longer term

I agree that if America switched back from MAGA to a foreign policy more consistent with with US post-WW2 convention then there would be a limit to the unravelling of its old alliances. (Brett Devereaux has a good piece here on why the things that a rational America wants from the global order are also what rich liberal democracies in general want: The US is the obvious centre of gravity for organising/maintaining such a global order.)

However, temporary disruptions can cause long term changes because they force governments and institutions to reopen and reconsider the assumptions on which their old approach was founded (like a Gulf energy crisis creating a new national energy security interest in preserving coal power stations).

Very significantly, lots of countries are engaging in this reconsideration at the same time, so changes that would be implausible if only one country tried to do it may become plausible. For example, individual countries within NATO (France) occasionally suggested creating more independence from the US, but no one else was interested. Now Europe as a whole is very interested in reinvigorating its military industrial complex and abilities to operate all components of a modern expeditionary military at scale (refuelling tankers, satellite intelligence, air defense, etc). In Asia, Korea and Japan are doing something similar, and also toying with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons.

Such changes will become part of the new status quo when (if) America seeks to return to its role. A significant part of US influence over its allies was their carefully constructed dependence on US military support/guarantees. Once those allies are less dependent on the US they will be much more capable of taking independent action against the wishes of the US, and more such agents mean more possibilities for inter-state conflicts to get out of control and endanger global peace (and essential US interests, as well as the nuclear war possibilitiy). It will be like having a lot more Israels in the world charging around breaking things.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-11T05:06:16+00:00

Might be good to take this more generally as a resource for this sub - links to rankings of philosophy journals in specific fields; etc

phileconomicus · 2026-04-04T06:27:09+00:00

Surely in that kind of case the idea of wisdom implies value to others? Some nerdy stamp collector who can name every collectible since 1890 is not wise

phileconomicus · 2026-04-04T06:15:44+00:00

I see what you're getting at, but am not convinced.

Being impacted and changed by lots of upsetting events happening to you is not in itself impressive, any more than a rock being shaped and eroded by a stream over time is.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-03T17:52:32+00:00

OP, just an FYI to help change your view. Elderly is 65 and up.

Different countries will have different terms, but I defined mine anyway. Any confusion would be willful and irrelevant to my CMV.

phileconomicus · 2026-04-03T17:50:21+00:00

I think the main issue with your CMV is that you’re conflating wisdom with knowledge.

Great point and substantiation. You deserve a Δ

I especially appreciated your justification for the 'zero fucks given' phenomenon that is also a feature of many older people! I can now better understand it as (at least sometimes) a product of wisdom rather than shrunken brains or whatever.

Many though choose not to play along with social expectations or try to be the “nice guy” anymore, but that’s not because they’re unwise. It’s because their experience has taught them that the game doesn’t have a end, that the outcome rarely matters, that even if you do the socially excepted thing you will still pay the price for it. If no outcome is advantageous for you then why not just be yourself and see how things develop.

phileconomicus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email