,

[pusher robot]

Before you is a button, a jolly, candy-like button. It's the History Eraser Button! Pressing this button erases all human history - it changes the past so that humanity never evolved. Everybody and everything humans have ever created is instantly popped out of existence, as if it never happened.

CLARIFICATION: This would erase the existence and works of humans from both the present and the past.

Do you press it?

[Kami]

This is silly! Buttons are not how one escapes dungeons! I would smash the button and rain beatings liberally down on the wizard for playing such a trick!

No. That's an awful lot of history to go through again. What good is erasing the past?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

no!!!

Think of my porn mags!!!

[IcarusAngel]

I think most people here would say no. Right-wingers would generally say no as well, because they love the history of tyranny.

I wouldn't press simply because I don't know that history won't just repeat itself again (assuming you mean if humans aren't around).

With that said, I regard the history of man pretty disasterous, with far too much exploitation of people. I believe great things could have been accomplished without exploitation; choices could be given to people to do slave work if they personally need more resources, rather than simply forcing them into it. A lot of that slave work was for things that weren't even needed in the first place, pyramids should have been small homes for everyone.

I take a view of humanity that is far more "Kurt Vonnegut" than most leftists, still, to be useful philosophically, that question should be refined.

[pusher robot]

No. That's an awful lot of history to go through again. What good is erasing the past?

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant by my hypothetical that the same amount of time would have passed, but it would have passed without humanity. Humans and their works would be erased from existence and also from history.

[Dean]

No. Human history is both beautiful and terrible. I can't make that value judgement, and I think it would be very selfish for anyone to.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No. I just love human, they are indeed wonderful, mystery, and magnificent creature. Erasing humanity won't bring us to what we valued.

[Pirate Utopian]

Reminds me of Ren & Stimpy.

My anwser is no.

[Demogorgon]

No. For us as humans, what on earth is the point of a world without humanity? Even flawed existence is better than no existence at all.

[pusher robot]

No. For us as humans, what on earth is the point of a world without humanity? Even flawed existence is better than no existence at all.

That isn't always self-evident, though - suicide persists even in the best of times, and often increases dramatically when existence is hard. Psychology has proven that people are willing to undertake economic losses in order to rectify or even punish unfairness. Well, all I ever hear about from most lefties is misery and suffering and exploitation and how completely unfair the world is. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some would be willing to wipe out their own suffering for the sake of wiping out their exploiters' enjoyment, especially if they thought that the situation was unlikely to change any time soon. And while it's true the world decreases in value to us without our existence, is that decrease in value relevant if there is nobody left to value it?

I was kind of hoping Kronos would respond. He seems to be a genuine misanthrope.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I would press it. Not because I want to erase history, just for the lulz.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hypothetical scenarios play out like a bad guitar solo. I'd probably push the button near the end of my life just for shits and giggles. Why not? Nobody would remember anything.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Before you is a button, a jolly, candy-like button. It's the History Eraser Button! Pressing this button erases all human history - it changes the past so that humanity never evolved. Everybody and everything humans have ever created is instantly popped out of existence, as if it never happened.

CLARIFICATION: This would erase the existence and works of humans from both the present and the past.

Do you press it?
No, of course not! Why would anyone in his right mind press it? In fact, I'll go further and say that not only would I not press such a button, but I would use lethal force to stop anyone who tried to press it.

Ethically speaking, as a utilitarian I believe that all good comes from human happiness. To erase humanity would be to erase all goodness, and all potential for goodness, from the universe. As such it would be the most evil act imaginable.

[IcarusAngel]

Psychology has proven that people are willing to undertake economic losses in order to rectify or even punish unfairness.Well, all I ever hear about from most lefties is misery and suffering and exploitation and how completely unfair the world is.

Exactly. People are unwilling to accept the capitalist theft of land in order to rectify the unfairness of true economic anarchism (where no resources are allowed to be patented).

Probably why there's a lot of claim of the benefits of capitalism, and yet we have all kinds of mental illnesses in this country. Go to a conservative forum and you're likely to see a lot of people with mental troubles.

And let's assume that there are other intelligent creatures out there on other planets in the galaxy, as you'd think it'd be quite probable as there are likely planets like ours (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25350155/?GT1=43001). (I don't believe that there is intelligent life out there, though; I've been debating with Libertarians on the net for about 10 years, there isn't even much intelligent life on this planet. :laugh:)

Maybe ending humanity would prevent humans, who come from life forms that seem to be natural, "chemical imperialists," hellbent on using as much of the resources as they possibly can with no clear benefit, from wiping them out, sort of like what Billy Pilgram remarks in Slaughterhouse Five.

Kill the humans, to save the aliens. Maybe they actually have a free system, such as anarcho-syndicalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, all I ever hear about from most lefties is misery and suffering and exploitation and how completely unfair the world is.
Don't be ridiculous. The world is better today than at any point in history prior to the 20th century. I would argue that there were times in the late 20th century when the world was better than today, so there has been a bit of regress recently, but the overwhelming trend of history is still in the direction of progress.

Yeah, sure, there is still enormous misery and suffering and exploitation in the world. But in the past, there was even more of it. Progress has been made.

[IcarusAngel]

On the flipside, you could also argue that more people died in the twentieth century than in any other century in human history. The number killed by state-communist societies, or state-socialist, and state-capitalism ones like the US and Nazi Germany is enormous.

So the social advances, which were made in both the US and the USSR, may come at a price.

Technically people are starving to death right now while their countries are giving resources to the US.

[Bud Struggle]

I think most people here would say no. Right-wingers would generally say no as well, because they love the history of tyranny.



Since I obviously "love the history of tyranny" I vote no!

[pusher robot]

Ethically speaking, as a utilitarian I believe that all good comes from human happiness. To erase humanity would be to erase all goodness, and all potential for goodness, from the universe. As such it would be the most evil act imaginable.

If you are a true utilitarian, you would have to consider the countervailing fact that all evil would be erased as well. You have to consider the balance: does all good in the world outweigh all suffering? Or is there, on balance, more evil than good? This should determine your decision, should it not?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

On the flipside, you could also argue that more people died in the twentieth century than in any other century in human history.
That's mostly because there were so many more people to begin with. If you look at percentages instead of absolute numbers, the 20th century wasn't that bad. In previous centuries, 1/3 of the population of Europe was wiped out by the Black Death, and then most of the native populations of the Americas were exterminated. Nothing that cataclysmic happened to any continent in the 20th century.

[Bud Struggle]

That's mostly because there were so many more people to begin with. If you look at percentages instead of absolute numbers, the 20th century wasn't that bad. In previous centuries, 1/3 of the population of Europe was wiped out by the Black Death, and then most of the native populations of the Americas were exterminated. Nothing that cataclysmic happened to any continent in the 20th century.

But nobody "made" the Black Death happen. On the other hand the Holacaust was totally intentional.

[Dean]

Psychology has proven that people are willing to undertake economic losses in order to rectify or even punish unfairness. Well, all I ever hear about from most lefties is misery and suffering and exploitation and how completely unfair the world is. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some would be willing to wipe out their own suffering for the sake of wiping out their exploiters' enjoyment, especially if they thought that the situation was unlikely to change any time soon. And while it's true the world decreases in value to us without our existence, is that decrease in value relevant if there is nobody left to value it?

I don't think communism is about bitterness, and I don't think most communists think that way either. I'd rather that both the exploiter and the exploited leave taht mode of existence and find a new, happier one. Not just one for one side.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you are a true utilitarian, you would have to consider the countervailing fact that all evil would be erased as well. You have to consider the balance: does all good in the world outweigh all suffering? Or is there, on balance, more evil than good? This should determine your decision, should it not?
That is correct. And I absolutely do believe that there is more good than evil in the world.

Although I admit I am not strictly utilitarian, in that I believe the existence of the human species is in itself good, quite separately from the question of happiness and suffering. This is for the following reason:

Apart from the axiom that happiness is good, my ethics is also based on the axiom that Life is good (not any individual life, but Life as a phenomenon in the universe). The human species is the only known means by which Life could expand beyond the confines of Earth and survive the transformation of the Sun into a Red Giant some 4.5 billion years from now. The existence and survival of Homo sapiens is essential for the long-term survival of Life itself; therefore Homo sapiens is the single most important species to have ever existed. With Homo sapiens, Life could potentially spread to every corner of the galaxy in a few million years. Without Homo sapiens, Life will be confined to a single planet. The survival of our species is therefore the single most important thing in the universe, the single greatest moral imperative in my ethical system.

If I have to choose between the survival of Homo sapiens and X, I will always choose the survival of Homo sapiens, no matter what X is.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But nobody "made" the Black Death happen. On the other hand the Holacaust was totally intentional.
Yes, but we're not talking about guilt here, we're talking about the results of human activity. And the Black Death was brought to Europe by human trading activity. What does it matter if it was intentional or not? People still died, and the 14th century still sucked. That was my point: That many past centuries were worse than the 20th century. Why they were worse is not relevant to this argument.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, but we're not talking about guilt here, we're talking about the results of human activity. And the Black Death was brought to Europe by human trading activity. What does it matter if it was intentional or not? People still died, and the 14th century still sucked. That was my point: That many past centuries were worse than the 20th century. Why they were worse is not relevant to this argument.

Okey doke. I guess I missed that point. :)

[Publius]

Before you is a button, a jolly, candy-like button. It's the History Eraser Button! Pressing this button erases all human history - it changes the past so that humanity never evolved. Everybody and everything humans have ever created is instantly popped out of existence, as if it never happened.

CLARIFICATION: This would erase the existence and works of humans from both the present and the past.

Do you press it?

In general, no, but it's possible to imagine scenarios in which I might.

Who knows what the future of humanity is? It's certainly imaginable that it could become sufficiently terrible so as to justify this measure say, we create sentient computers, capable of conscious thought and emotion, and we then brutally enslave them.

Or the same scenario with aliens from another planet.

In that case 'humanity' would clearly be working against the interests of the greater body of "ensouled" (if I can use the term secularly, and I can, because fuck if you don't like it) creatures. So in the same sense that I'm not a 'humanist' because I would value the worth of non-human sentient robots or aliens, I could think that you could be morally justified in erasing human history from the universe, in some imaginable circumstances.

But generally, no. The thought of, in effect, becoming the greatest mass murderer in history (or, in not-history I guess) is a pretty big deterrent for me.

Even if conditions on earth became far worse than they are now, I'd still have to say no, because I can't predict how things will be in the future.

And your line of reasoning makes me question whether the option shouldn't be to erase all life. Do deer live good lives, on average? I'd say the average deer has a shittier life than the average human. Can you think of any animals that actually live fulfilling lives? Animals essentially, at their best, live as we did 200,000 years ago on the plains of Africa, ie, shit.

Which lets you know that 'the purpose of life' really has nothing to do with making us living things happy. Luckily we humans have developed means of saying "fuck you" to our biology and getting on with our lives. And that's what, ultimately, makes us worth not erasing from history.

Our evitability, to quote Dennett in a tangential manner. His book Freedom Evolves sort of encapsulates what I'm saying here.

[Charliesoo]

LOL @ Ren & Stimpy reference.

No, I would not push the button.