{q}
Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are born.
{/q}

New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 8:09:27 PM UTC-7, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> {q}
> Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are born.
> {/q}
>
> New to me.

Me too, but the Internet knows about it. Ord seems to be Toby Ord, a philosopher
at Oxford. Of course the idea isn't new. I imagine longtermists credit the Iroquois
and whoever C. S. Lewis was heaping scorn on (Stapledon and Haldane, according
to Wikipedia) in /Out of the Silent Planet/ and /Perelandra/.

> I don't know what it's a quote from..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/11/07/doomsday-scenarios-asteroids/

--
Jerry Friedman

On 13/11/2022 04:37, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 8:09:27 PM UTC-7, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> {q}
>> Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are born.
>> {/q}
>>
>> New to me.
>
> Me too, but the Internet knows about it. Ord seems to be Toby Ord, a philosopher
> at Oxford. Of course the idea isn't new. I imagine longtermists credit the Iroquois
> and whoever C. S. Lewis was heaping scorn on (Stapledon and Haldane, according
> to Wikipedia) in /Out of the Silent Planet/ and /Perelandra/.
>
>> I don't know what it's a quote from..
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/11/07/doomsday-scenarios-asteroids/
>

Thank you for that link. An interesting article for fans of SF.

Extract:
"The planetary defense officer [NASA] focuses on the detection of
dangerous asteroids and comets that might threaten the Earth (as in the
movies “Don’t Look Up” and “Armageddon” and “Deep Impact”), and explores
technologies for preventing such a thing from happening.

"The Expanse" is another film [Netflix series] where this idea is
developed. The catapulter of rocks is a disgruntled 'belter' intent on
destroying Earthers and their colonialism.

Le 13/11/2022 à 03:09, David Kleinecke a écrit :
> {q}
> Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are born.
> {/q}
>
> New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..

It's a word assembled from existing components, is unsurprising, and was
always likely to be born on Earth or one of its future colonies
elsewhere in the Universe (assuming they speak English).

I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn. What
about all those sperm and eggs that never meet? Should we be going at it
like rabbits to save some of them from non-existence? How do we balance
the rights of the present unborn against those of the future unborn,
since they obviously conflict?

Beats me.

On 13/11/2022 10:03, Hibou wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 03:09, David Kleinecke a écrit :
>> {q}
>> Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.”
>> Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the
>> welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us
>> here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those
>> obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our
>> planet before those future people are born.
>> {/q}
>>
>> New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..
>
> It's a word assembled from existing components,

What? do you mean letters of the alphabet?

is unsurprising, and was
> always likely to be born on Earth or one of its future colonies

The word, or the obligation?

> elsewhere in the Universe (assuming they speak English).

The first of your sentences is an extraordinary concoction, the result
of a disappointing Sunday breakfast?

>
> I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn. What
> about all those sperm and eggs that never meet? Should we be going at it
> like rabbits to save some of them from non-existence? How do we balance
> the rights of the present unborn against those of the future unborn,
> since they obviously conflict?
>
> Beats me.
>

Le 13/11/2022 à 09:26, occam a écrit :
> On 13/11/2022 10:03, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 13/11/2022 à 03:09, David Kleinecke a écrit :
>>> {q}
>>> Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called “longtermism.”
>>> Proponents of the long view say we have moral obligations to the
>>> welfare of the trillions of people who might potentially follow us
>>> here on Earth, and on worlds across the universe. Highest among those
>>> obligations, of course, is to avoid destroying ourselves and our
>>> planet before those future people are born.
>>> {/q}
>>>
>>> New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..
>>
>> It's a word assembled from existing components,
>
> What? do you mean letters of the alphabet?

Long-term-ism. Quite like short-term-ism, really, in a way.

>> is unsurprising, and was
>> always likely to be born on Earth or one of its future colonies
>
> The word, or the obligation?

The antecedent in my sentence, and the subject of the thread, is the word.

>> elsewhere in the Universe (assuming they speak English).
>
> The first of your sentences is an extraordinary concoction,

Oh, do you find it so? I'm sorry to hear it's given you indigestion -
but I acknowledge readily that everything I write is only a draft.

> the result of a disappointing Sunday breakfast?

Hibou <h.i@b.ou> writes:
>I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn.

I'd say there are two moral imperatives in this regard:

1st: Avoid that beings suffer
2nd: Do not prevent a future pleasant life of descendants
of humans and other living beings.

It does not follow from this that now as many humans as
possible must be begotten. Quite the contrary, excessive
multiplication is harmful.

On 13/11/22 20:03, Hibou wrote:
> Le 13/11/2022 à 03:09, David Kleinecke a écrit :
>> {q} Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called
>> “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral
>> obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might
>> potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the
>> universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid
>> destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are
>> born. {/q}
>>
>> New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..
>
> It's a word assembled from existing components, is unsurprising, and
> was always likely to be born on Earth or one of its future colonies
> elsewhere in the Universe (assuming they speak English).
>
> I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn.
> What about all those sperm and eggs that never meet? Should we be
> going at it like rabbits to save some of them from non-existence? How
> do we balance the rights of the present unborn against those of the
> future unborn, since they obviously conflict?
>
> Beats me.

Is separate storage of sperm and eggs a form of abortion? I don't think
the Vatican says so. But anything goes if you promote a court system
that ignores the principle of separation of powers and allows political
interference into judicial appointments. That way, you can get some real
crackpots on the bench.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 7:19:12 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/11/22 20:03, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 13/11/2022 à 03:09, David Kleinecke a écrit :
> >> {q} Ord is part of a new intellectual movement called
> >> “longtermism.” Proponents of the long view say we have moral
> >> obligations to the welfare of the trillions of people who might
> >> potentially follow us here on Earth, and on worlds across the
> >> universe. Highest among those obligations, of course, is to avoid
> >> destroying ourselves and our planet before those future people are
> >> born. {/q}
> >>
> >> New to me. I don't know what it's a quote from..
> >
> > It's a word assembled from existing components, is unsurprising, and
> > was always likely to be born on Earth or one of its future colonies
> > elsewhere in the Universe (assuming they speak English).
> >
> > I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn.
> > What about all those sperm and eggs that never meet? Should we be
> > going at it like rabbits to save some of them from non-existence? How
> > do we balance the rights of the present unborn against those of the
> > future unborn, since they obviously conflict?
> >
> > Beats me.
> Is separate storage of sperm and eggs a form of abortion? I don't think
> the Vatican says so. But anything goes if you promote a court system
> that ignores the principle of separation of powers and allows political
> interference into judicial appointments. That way, you can get some real
> crackpots on the bench.

Some Senate republicans are promoting the idea of dispensing with
McConnell as their (Minority, still, TBTG) Leader -- because he is not
T****y enough. It was he who manipulated the judicial appointment
procedure to first deny Obama's nominee and then confirm T****'s
nominee to SCOTUS.

Not to mention that he also would not bring up most of Obama's
lower-level Federal judiciary appointments, so that T**** had many
more vacancies to fill than usual -- but Biden has managed to outpace
T**** at that task.

(But it was Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada who
did away with the 60-vote requirement for lower-level judicial appointments,
so it was a nothing-step for McConnell to do away with it for SCOTUS.
It used to be a check on Majority overreach. In the olden days, judges
were recommended by the senators from the state with the vacancy.
T**** changed that to get recommendations on political grounds only.)

If Walker gets his just deserts in Georgia a few weeks hence, there
will be 51 Democratic senators and Joe Manshin's obstructionism
can be ignored.

Le 13/11/2022 à 11:54, Stefan Ram a écrit :
> Hibou writes:
>>
>> I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn.
>
> I'd say there are two moral imperatives in this regard:
>
> 1st: Avoid that beings suffer
> 2nd: Do not prevent a future pleasant life of descendants
> of humans and other living beings. [...]

Perhaps. I think I'd like to know the consequences of preventing all
suffering. Would this imperative be satisfied if everyone were drugged
into happiness? Would that be a good thing? Were our art, science, and
civilisation created without suffering?

Your second imperative is one that I've pondered in relation to
vegetarianism. There is a popular slogan, "Friends not food", which I
think is dishonest. It implies that if we stopped rearing animals for
meat, we'd continue to keep them for their society and conversation -
which of course we wouldn't. Vegetarianism would result in these animals
having no lives at all.

The life of an animal in the wild must often be difficult and unpleasant
- competitive, subject to foul weather, predators, starvation, and
disease. A farm animal has food and medical care, and shelter when
required. It's true we often abuse, and this is where we must take
action. Even death in an abattoir is surely better than expiring
miserably in a corner because one is too sick to forage.

Voilà? Meat eating, and not vegetarianism, results in more animals
having pleasant lives - provided we're humane towards them.

Interesting what comes out of moral imperatives.

Le 13/11/2022 à 12:19, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>
> Is separate storage of sperm and eggs a form of abortion? I don't think
> the Vatican says so. But anything goes if you promote a court system
> that ignores the principle of separation of powers and allows political
> interference into judicial appointments. That way, you can get some real
> crackpots on the bench.

Ah, yes, the Vatican. Apparently, Heaven and Hell have elastic sides,
and can accommodate any number of souls. But we who live in their
antechamber are finding it has its limits. Perhaps the Church will catch
up with this idea one day.

Hibou <h.i@b.ou> writes:
>Perhaps. I think I'd like to know the consequences of preventing all
>suffering. Would this imperative be satisfied if everyone were drugged
>into happiness?

It would also be satisfied if everyone was annihilated
within a nanosecond, because no one would notice it and
there would be no grieving bereaved left. As if in the
case of, say, a sudden false vacuum decay. Web:

|The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has
|never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the
|ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are
|new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life
|as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it.
Web.

However, such an annihilation of everyone would violate
the other rule I gave (as "2nd").

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:06:14 +0000
Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:

> Le 13/11/2022 à 11:54, Stefan Ram a écrit :
> > Hibou writes:
> >>
> >> I have doubts about these obligations to trillions of the unborn.
> >
> > I'd say there are two moral imperatives in this regard:
> >
> > 1st: Avoid that beings suffer
> > 2nd: Do not prevent a future pleasant life of descendants
> > of humans and other living beings. [...]
>
[]
>
> The life of an animal in the wild must often be difficult and unpleasant
> - competitive, subject to foul weather, predators, starvation, and
> disease. A farm animal has food and medical care, and shelter when
> required. It's true we often abuse, and this is where we must take
> action. Even death in an abattoir is surely better than expiring
> miserably in a corner because one is too sick to forage.
>
> Voilà? Meat eating, and not vegetarianism, results in more animals
> having pleasant lives - provided we're humane towards them.
>

YA 'David' the troll from the Vegan NG of 20 years ago resurrected,
AICM5UKP.

> Interesting what comes out of moral imperatives.
>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Le 14/11/2022 à 09:22, Kerr-Mudd, John a écrit :
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:06:14 +0000 Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Voilà? Meat eating, and not vegetarianism, results in more animals
>> having pleasant lives - provided we're humane towards them.
>
> YA 'David' the troll from the Vegan NG of 20 years ago resurrected,
> AICM5UKP.

Ah, you're vegan. I didn't know.

You mustn't mind me. I just like exploring ideas.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 06:36:53 +0000
Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:

> Le 14/11/2022 à 09:22, Kerr-Mudd, John a écrit :
> > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:06:14 +0000 Hibou wrote:
> >>
> >> Voilà? Meat eating, and not vegetarianism, results in more animals
> >> having pleasant lives - provided we're humane towards them.
> >
> > YA 'David' the troll from the Vegan NG of 20 years ago resurrected,
> > AICM5UKP.
>
> Ah, you're vegan. I didn't know.
>
> You mustn't mind me. I just like exploring ideas.
>
No I don't mind. I was just reminiscing about the troll.

Here's a post from a guy who he'd wound up:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.food.vegan/c/VM8IVr78_J0/m/2AXuYP5tCwAJ
(Too long, just to give a flavour, not important, move along)

David thought 'experiencing life' trumped all.

#Every sperm is sacred...

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.