Comments by "Kate S" (@KateeAngel) on "Institute for Extinction Risk Shuts Down: What We Know" video.

I see many people on youtube and elsewhere engage in useless grandiose fantasies about us colonising whole galaxy for millions or billions of years or even surviving death of Sun or maybe even whole universe... while our current civilization functions as if it plans to exist for 300 years maximum, and then destroy all of its basis (stable biosphere) and die off.
1
@KarlaKloppstock true. Current social and economic system, addicted to impossible idea of endless growth (and useless grandiose fantasies which overestimate our civilizations' ability to survive without support of viable biosphere) is more likely to destroy civilization in few centuries than save it from anything.
1
so animal farms collect cows' burps? I doubt it.
1
Especially if you look far enough into the future (and the past too) - the line between humanity and non-human life forms blurs. Some of your descendants (not mine, I am childfree and anti-natalist!) may change so much after millions of years that we would not consider them "human"
1
@davidschaftenaar6530 yeah the idea that the future is more important is only an illusion created by our brain's perception of "arrow of time" (which is actually just a gradient of entropy)
1
@wilhelmu yup, as an anti-natalist I was repulsed by the FoH institute's idea that we should assure that more people come into existence in the future, as many as possible. Before speaking for the humanity they certainly didn't think that there are many humans who don't agree with their values. Their values are as subjective as anyone's else's
1
@davidhand9721 their biggest flaw is that they don't realise that estimating the probability of what effect anyone's decisions will have in a really long term future is impossible. It is even impossible to estimate the probability of your estimate being correct
1
I still remember video from years ago I watched in which one of the guys from there said something like "decreasing existential risks even by 1% is more important than anything thus best thing you can do is give money to people who want to decrease existential risks." He literally said "give me money, that's the best you can do" but worded it differently. That is when I first suspected they are not all right
1