Here's an answer to the first question. If you think that the value of human life is *entirely* constituted by its contribution to the human future then you really do get a kind of backwards induction argument going that if humanity ever goes extinct, all lives at all times are worthless.
But that's a bad view, and it seems to me to suffer from a kind of regress problem. Unless the future has some value in itself--ie value that doesn't derive from a relationship to the future's future--what's so good about contributing to projects involving it?
Better to say that there are sources of value that don't depend on the future--there are intrinsic values that can be realized with in a single life--as well as others that do. I think it's also plausible that the value that depends on there being a future amounts to contributing to those intrinsic sources of value in the future. Maybe it's intrinsically valuable to walk on a beach in the sunrise, regardless of whether there's a future. If you cure cancer and there's a lot of future, then that cure enables there to be a lot of sunrise walks. But if there's not much future, then the only source of value are the things like sunrise walks in your lifetime; not enabling future sunrise walks for others.
So when we're on the brink of extinction there are far fewer sources of value available to humans. When there is a long future that will eventually end in extinction there are far more.
I wrote about Scheffler's work and the legacy paradox in my dad brain book! It's part of a chapter on meaning + purpose - the idea that we get our sense of purpose not just from the children we are raising now, but the children that might exist in the future.
“Kieran Setiya, Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way” red meat for a therapist aiming to be always be more thoughtful. Will have to check it out.
I wonder if in that scenario we might largely turn to a kind of radical environmentalism, and so less litter rather than more. I'd guess that we would see a surge in pets too. If humanity is going to die out and we will all be forgotten, the last act we do might be to be kind to the rest of nature and try to undo a lot of the harm we've done. Try to leave the world a bit nicer for whatever species take dominance once we're gone (dolphins?).
I think death in general makes us see ourselves as part of larger collective organisms like families, religions, nations, and even nature.
I suspect the eventual extinction of humanity doesn't cause existential dread mostly because we don't really believe it's coming. The science is very speculative and we have no idea what future tech/science will allow by then. I don't think it's inevitable, unless we include us evolving into successor species, which seems totally acceptable and even kind of cool to me.
BTW I'm listening to the book and it's great -- I highly recommend it!
Here's an answer to the first question. If you think that the value of human life is *entirely* constituted by its contribution to the human future then you really do get a kind of backwards induction argument going that if humanity ever goes extinct, all lives at all times are worthless.
But that's a bad view, and it seems to me to suffer from a kind of regress problem. Unless the future has some value in itself--ie value that doesn't derive from a relationship to the future's future--what's so good about contributing to projects involving it?
Better to say that there are sources of value that don't depend on the future--there are intrinsic values that can be realized with in a single life--as well as others that do. I think it's also plausible that the value that depends on there being a future amounts to contributing to those intrinsic sources of value in the future. Maybe it's intrinsically valuable to walk on a beach in the sunrise, regardless of whether there's a future. If you cure cancer and there's a lot of future, then that cure enables there to be a lot of sunrise walks. But if there's not much future, then the only source of value are the things like sunrise walks in your lifetime; not enabling future sunrise walks for others.
So when we're on the brink of extinction there are far fewer sources of value available to humans. When there is a long future that will eventually end in extinction there are far more.
I wrote about Scheffler's work and the legacy paradox in my dad brain book! It's part of a chapter on meaning + purpose - the idea that we get our sense of purpose not just from the children we are raising now, but the children that might exist in the future.
!!!
Ok, I’m getting a copy now.
[edit: I’ll get one once preorders start!]
Thank you!! There is no copy yet - it's not due out till next May or so - but stay tuned!
“Kieran Setiya, Life Is Hard: How Philosophy Can Help Us Find Our Way” red meat for a therapist aiming to be always be more thoughtful. Will have to check it out.
Hope you enjoy! Would be interested in hearing your thoughts if you end up giving it a read.
Children off Men
I wonder if in that scenario we might largely turn to a kind of radical environmentalism, and so less litter rather than more. I'd guess that we would see a surge in pets too. If humanity is going to die out and we will all be forgotten, the last act we do might be to be kind to the rest of nature and try to undo a lot of the harm we've done. Try to leave the world a bit nicer for whatever species take dominance once we're gone (dolphins?).
I think death in general makes us see ourselves as part of larger collective organisms like families, religions, nations, and even nature.
I suspect the eventual extinction of humanity doesn't cause existential dread mostly because we don't really believe it's coming. The science is very speculative and we have no idea what future tech/science will allow by then. I don't think it's inevitable, unless we include us evolving into successor species, which seems totally acceptable and even kind of cool to me.
BTW I'm listening to the book and it's great -- I highly recommend it!