Life vs Life

[televator]

I don't entirely agree that we have to restrain what makes sense to us about these extreme scenarios. If we simply suspended all further contemplation beyond the stated scope, then there'd be a lot of lost value to the thought experiment.

Any way, there's a bit more to consider. Like how fast and by what means is the human eradication taking place in option 1?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't entirely agree that we have to restrain what makes sense to us about these extreme scenarios. If we simply suspended all further contemplation beyond the stated scope, then there'd be a lot of lost value to the thought experiment.

Any way, there's a bit more to consider. Like how fast and by what means is the human eradication taking place in option 1?

You are not the first person I encouter that thinks that way, and I think that does you a great discervice. Just because some of the peripheral concequences of the story used are lunatic, it does not mean that you can not think about the main point. And how could you possible concieve of a unreal situation without it being conflictuouse with what we know about reality at some point? Imagin that I would try to explain whatever unreal situation A (whatever that might be) for whatever reason. Is it a real situation? No. So how come given my status quo could I possibly get to tht situation "A"? You don't! So how come could it possibly be coherent with reality? It isn't.
It is like asking a homeless guy, "If you were to go to a strip club, would you rather have a private show with 2 girls or 1 girl and as much beer as you could drink?", and the homeless guy reply "I have no money, plus I am gay. Why would I go to a strip club?"
Now my question to you is. Would it really matter?

So to answer your question:

Like how fast and by what means is the human eradication taking place in option 1?

Doesn't matter, what matter is they are all killed. For as much as it matters maybe they could have all simultaneously decided to eat a magic cherry that made their bowls fall out on the next hour. Or maybe they had a magic heart attack and died. It doesn't matter. What matter is, given the end situation, would you hypoteticaly rather be in option 1 and why or option 2 and again why.

 

[televator]

Well, for me, the whole point of thought experiments is to work out ethical conflicts and my moral choices depend on the details of the current problem. So not thinking about the details is leaving out a lot important foot work in this mental exercise.

It's your exercise though. You proceed how you like, but I can't contribute according to your rules.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well, for me, the whole point of thought experiments is to work out ethical conflicts and my moral choices depend on the details of the current problem. So not thinking about the details is leaving out a lot important foot work in this mental exercise.

It's your exercise though. You proceed how you like, but I can't contribute according to your rules.

You can allways express difrent situations and how would it change your choice, if you think it helps.

I am convinced that expecifying it won't help.
But for all that matters
Assume that whatever you chose to die, will die in the following seconds prior to your decision without felling anything or realising that they are about to die (by means of a specially synthetised neurotoxin in case of killing all humans). For those 100 who survive, you can have a stock pile of food for enough for the early years before you can grow specially geneticaly modified crops that gives you all the protein and nutrients you need, down side it makes you sterile.

 

[MindHack]

Both options are depressing to me.

To choose option 1 I must agree with myself on killing my loved ones and willingly end human history. I couldn't and wouldn't.

I couldn't and wouldn't consciously choose option 2 either. It isn't anywhere near worth it to choose for a hundred people to live temporarily on a sort of Martian base, while it was me who put them there.

Not choosing one of both options is also an implied option to choose from. What will happen if I abstain from making a choice? (effectively dodging horrible responsibility)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Both options are depressing to me.

To choose option 1 I must agree with myself on killing my loved ones and willingly end human history. I couldn't and wouldn't.

I couldn't and wouldn't consciously choose option 2 either. It isn't anywhere near worth it to choose for a hundred people to live temporarily on a sort of Martian base, while it was me who put them there.

Not choosing one of both options is also an implied option to choose from. What will happen if I abstain from making a choice? (effectively dodging horrible responsibility)

They are both depressing, if it wasn't it would probably be easy and not interesting. The point is not to avoid the dilema by defaulting to "I refuse to make a choice", altough with a simple solution that can be fixed. Not chosing means everything dies no exceptions, which is quite obviously a worst prospect than any of the previous 2.

 

[MindHack]

I'm afraid your solution isn't working for me very well. To me I consider this thought experiment as it were a real life event happening to me. If I were truly made responsible for the fate of nearly anything I think I know myself well enough I couldn't live with either option, rendering me powerless to choose, thus choose neither. I bet I'd be willing to accept any consequence, as long as they're not on my behalf.

But I have the feeling I'm missing the point.

You say you want to see what people think. How they value their own species in comparison to others. I have the feeling you've decided people will choose option 2 at some point, if the probability for reproduction is made large enough. You seem to think in long term, broad scale effects of the decision, while I think of the choice itself. The choice must be made for the effects to happen, and I don't think I'll succeed in doing so, whatever the consequense.

EDIT: If it would not be a choice but just a question about a more preferable situation I would go for option 1 at all times.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I understand that there are reasons to chose option 1 over option 2 and vice versa altough most answers so far have chosen 1, and i can't convince myself that could pass a good judgement on this particular extreme situation, and this bother me a litle as unrealistic the situation may be. I was really interested in hearing other peoples reasoning on this (altough I have some dificulty keeping people concentrated on the point), maybe it is not as clear cut for them or maybe it is and they find it to obvious but don't want to compromise. I really do apreciate answers.

EDIT: If it would not be a choice but just a question about a more preferable situation I would go for option 1 at all times.

Well that works quite well. But why?

 

[MindHack]

I understand that there are reasons to chose option 1 over option 2 and vice versa altough most answers so far have chosen 1, and i can't convince myself that could pass a good judgement on this particular extreme situation, and this bother me a litle as unrealistic the situation may be. I was really interested in hearing other peoples reasoning on this (altough I have some dificulty keeping people concentrated on the point), maybe it is not as clear cut for them or maybe it is and they find it to obvious but don't want to compromise. I really do apreciate answers.

EDIT: If it would not be a choice but just a question about a more preferable situation I would go for option 1 at all times.

Well that works quite well. But why?

ok then,

I have a selfish, an altruistic, and a practical/logical reason to choose option 1.

the selfish reason would be that I think it's comforting to know, that I will see the end days of the human species.

the altruistic reason would be that I feel our own existence doesn't compare to the existence of all biodiversity.

The practical/logical reason would be that it's just not possible to live on without other life forms.

In addition, option 2 doesn't really offer anything substantial except maybe for a variable chance for some random humans to live on in a global desert.