Ethical dilemma: What makes life worth living? - Douglas MacLean
video description
Date: 2023-10-03
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Tom
I think, the definition of what is 'meaningful' is the real argument here. One scientist sees just being alive is meaningful, and the other sees preserving their cultures lifestyle etc is meaningful.
It became a philosophically umanswerable question because, it is questioning the axioms of our innate moral itself. Axioms are just believed to be true, we feel that is correct. inherently. Generally we fix to one of the two perspectives, and then morally discriminate the all other questions. But here you are questioning the axiom itself.
No matter how hard you try, you have to believe something is true, blindly, without any logic, and then discriminate what is right and what is wrong based on this belief.
So what is meaningful and what is meaningless is just what you fix, you can fix anything(it is meaningless. And the rest of the things will be meaningful or meaningless according to what you fix to meaninglessly.
So everything is meaningless
But if everything is meaningless, then what i have written is also meaningless
Not only what I have written, but, the statement 'everthing is meaningless' should also be meaningless.
But that statement should also be meaningless
But that statement should also be meaningless
and so on. it is a never ending paradox
but saying that statement is also meaningless.
So, I effectively reduced this question into this paradox. Not only this question, any question series which start with why will end up in this paradox. This is called the liars paradox.
A man broke math with this logic. But he couldnt break the paradox
Im currently exploring the solution for this paradox. I think i will get an answer from the Bhatruhari Subhashita(Sanskrit poem)
When i find the answer, I will post a reply to this comment.
reply
I think, the definition of what is 'meaningful' is the real argument here. One scientist sees just being alive is meaningful, and the other sees preserving their cultures lifestyle etc is meaningful.
It became a philosophically umanswerable question because, it is questioning the axioms of our innate moral itself. Axioms are just believed to be true, we feel that is correct. inherently. Generally we fix to one of the two perspectives, and then morally discriminate the all other questions. But here you are questioning the axiom itself.
No matter how hard you try, you have to believe something is true, blindly, without any logic, and then discriminate what is right and what is wrong based on this belief.
So what is meaningful and what is meaningless is just what you fix, you can fix anything(it is meaningless. And the rest of the things will be meaningful or meaningless according to what you fix to meaninglessly.
So everything is meaningless
But if everything is meaningless, then what i have written is also meaningless
Not only what I have written, but, the statement 'everthing is meaningless' should also be meaningless.
But that statement should also be meaningless
But that statement should also be meaningless
and so on. it is a never ending paradox
but saying that statement is also meaningless.
So, I effectively reduced this question into this paradox. Not only this question, any question series which start with why will end up in this paradox. This is called the liars paradox.
A man broke math with this logic. But he couldnt break the paradox
Im currently exploring the solution for this paradox. I think i will get an answer from the Bhatruhari Subhashita(Sanskrit poem)
When i find the answer, I will post a reply to this comment.
reply
afterI_Realised
I choose Polixate, only if those ( imagined ) humans-like-species can still form their neuron-like-connections ( IDK if they are neurons, cause the species are imagined. and i think they have some sort of neurons; cause people before ( when breathing nuronium ) have imagination, thinking reflectively, etc. ) while inhaling Polixate.
Using Polixate, This change can bring changes in the way people behave also, like: people use trail and error method ( which is slow, but far better and less error prone than creativity, people who stay close will sustain by helping each others, and culture cannot be replaced even though external factors changed; culture can be still get back ( with some changes cause people then use Polixate. so rules related to them ) by trail and error ( isint that how culture is bought up by people when there isn't a thing called culture? .
And it is true by doing so the culture and other things which made them to thrive will die when they are using Polixate, cause rules for better survival using it will be the culture.
Now i am wondering how did our culture formed.
reply
I choose Polixate, only if those ( imagined ) humans-like-species can still form their neuron-like-connections ( IDK if they are neurons, cause the species are imagined. and i think they have some sort of neurons; cause people before ( when breathing nuronium ) have imagination, thinking reflectively, etc. ) while inhaling Polixate.
Using Polixate, This change can bring changes in the way people behave also, like: people use trail and error method ( which is slow, but far better and less error prone than creativity, people who stay close will sustain by helping each others, and culture cannot be replaced even though external factors changed; culture can be still get back ( with some changes cause people then use Polixate. so rules related to them ) by trail and error ( isint that how culture is bought up by people when there isn't a thing called culture? .
And it is true by doing so the culture and other things which made them to thrive will die when they are using Polixate, cause rules for better survival using it will be the culture.
Now i am wondering how did our culture formed.
reply
Axelgear2006
I think I'd stick with nuronium. Not necessarily because I think it's the best choice but because I think it'd be immoral to impose a species-wide lobotomy on people. This dilemma is a thought experiment to expose modes of thinking but I think the question as to whether you'd even have a right to do this is just as interesting, if not more so, as the one it presents. Also, the polixate team's arguments about collective happiness are unconvincing: In the absence of our species, others would take our place. The collective happiness would reach a similar equilibrium. The argument that it has to be us who achieves that degree of happiness is just species chauvinism. The only argument to be made that our happiness is somehow superior would rely on the complexity of thought surrounding it; the degree of appreciation. In the absence of that, let the streets fill with grass and let the cows form great herds. They're capable of love and joy. Call it an apology for the horrors of animal husbandry.
reply
I think I'd stick with nuronium. Not necessarily because I think it's the best choice but because I think it'd be immoral to impose a species-wide lobotomy on people. This dilemma is a thought experiment to expose modes of thinking but I think the question as to whether you'd even have a right to do this is just as interesting, if not more so, as the one it presents. Also, the polixate team's arguments about collective happiness are unconvincing: In the absence of our species, others would take our place. The collective happiness would reach a similar equilibrium. The argument that it has to be us who achieves that degree of happiness is just species chauvinism. The only argument to be made that our happiness is somehow superior would rely on the complexity of thought surrounding it; the degree of appreciation. In the absence of that, let the streets fill with grass and let the cows form great herds. They're capable of love and joy. Call it an apology for the horrors of animal husbandry.
reply
Charles124
Why can't it be both in some copasity, knowing about body chemistry is that if the first one is used at a lower copasity will make it so they have less of the good but also less of the bad, depending on percentage; which I can't say what is right in this case; it can have best of both worlds, people won't be as creative and such but they will still be while still being able to reproduce, this also helps in another way as it gives choice of infertility with a high long term memory as well as creativaty and with this being not a long term issue would likely help to wean off the first one to normal levels or even lower percentages to increase odds of success. I know this isn't what you are asking but most people don't think outside of the box which causes issues, may this be a learning point for us all
I am terrible at spelling some words so when you see stuff like I just did that is why
reply
Why can't it be both in some copasity, knowing about body chemistry is that if the first one is used at a lower copasity will make it so they have less of the good but also less of the bad, depending on percentage; which I can't say what is right in this case; it can have best of both worlds, people won't be as creative and such but they will still be while still being able to reproduce, this also helps in another way as it gives choice of infertility with a high long term memory as well as creativaty and with this being not a long term issue would likely help to wean off the first one to normal levels or even lower percentages to increase odds of success. I know this isn't what you are asking but most people don't think outside of the box which causes issues, may this be a learning point for us all
I am terrible at spelling some words so when you see stuff like I just did that is why
reply
Xis
This hypothetical scenario makes complex life and sentience seem more common than in the real world, which would make the extremely high risk of total extinction a smaller threat because there would be other life to inhabit this world (just because there's a pollutant that is reducing fertility doesn't mean they can't save ten thousand individuals in a bunker that is clear of this pollutant. Regardless of that, however, I would propose the use of both Nuronium and Polixate. The civilization gets two energy sources, only one of which has a downside (the people lose creativity and long-term memories on their own, not because of Polixate. So they can double their energy production, which inevitably leads to technological improvement. Now the people in the bunker just need to put in time and effort to work around the infertility pollutant.
reply
This hypothetical scenario makes complex life and sentience seem more common than in the real world, which would make the extremely high risk of total extinction a smaller threat because there would be other life to inhabit this world (just because there's a pollutant that is reducing fertility doesn't mean they can't save ten thousand individuals in a bunker that is clear of this pollutant. Regardless of that, however, I would propose the use of both Nuronium and Polixate. The civilization gets two energy sources, only one of which has a downside (the people lose creativity and long-term memories on their own, not because of Polixate. So they can double their energy production, which inevitably leads to technological improvement. Now the people in the bunker just need to put in time and effort to work around the infertility pollutant.
reply
Some
I feel like this is a huge loss-loss situation because one is extinction in a little while and the other is practically the same thing as extinction tommorow.
I like to ask the question as more like what you want to lose the least, then what you want to retain more.
Also, PLEASE keep in mind that this thought experiment was meant for this simple question: would you rather choose gradual extinction or remove our functions that make us so advanced psychologally speaking.
As interesting as it is to think about, don't think about how extinction by lower birthrates will effect the socio-economic status of people a few years before extinction or how whilst they are using Polixate they discover an alternative source of consciousness or whatever of the sort, because that's not what the dilemma was about.
reply
I feel like this is a huge loss-loss situation because one is extinction in a little while and the other is practically the same thing as extinction tommorow.
I like to ask the question as more like what you want to lose the least, then what you want to retain more.
Also, PLEASE keep in mind that this thought experiment was meant for this simple question: would you rather choose gradual extinction or remove our functions that make us so advanced psychologally speaking.
As interesting as it is to think about, don't think about how extinction by lower birthrates will effect the socio-economic status of people a few years before extinction or how whilst they are using Polixate they discover an alternative source of consciousness or whatever of the sort, because that's not what the dilemma was about.
reply
Misinformation
Both of the solutions of this premise would result in the extinction of the people. One makes them infertile and unable to reproduce which will lead to extinction. The second would make all the people loose their memories. Without memory the people would no longer be able to use or upkeep the technology that they rely on to stay alive. Thus resulting in the extinction of the people. A third solution that doesn't result in the extinction of the species would be the only ethical option. Such as finding another renewable energy source or revert to a society that doesn't rely on energy production. If the only options are the ones that result in extinction, the most ethical decision would be the one that is the least painful to the people.
reply
Both of the solutions of this premise would result in the extinction of the people. One makes them infertile and unable to reproduce which will lead to extinction. The second would make all the people loose their memories. Without memory the people would no longer be able to use or upkeep the technology that they rely on to stay alive. Thus resulting in the extinction of the people. A third solution that doesn't result in the extinction of the species would be the only ethical option. Such as finding another renewable energy source or revert to a society that doesn't rely on energy production. If the only options are the ones that result in extinction, the most ethical decision would be the one that is the least painful to the people.
reply
Omarino
Tough decision but my alligiance gun to my head is team nuronium. The thing is if you lose long term memory then you cannot remember anything or anyone you love. No one will be able to carry on the civilisation already created since no one can remember how to do anything. The people would devolve into simply wild animals. Another thing is if we use poloxium there will be an entire geberation that will forget everything they know and you are essentially depriving them of a future just because you think the lives of their descendants matter more than theirs. Life will advance again as it always does if yhat was the end of humanity atleast let is go out with bang rather than a flicker.
reply
Tough decision but my alligiance gun to my head is team nuronium. The thing is if you lose long term memory then you cannot remember anything or anyone you love. No one will be able to carry on the civilisation already created since no one can remember how to do anything. The people would devolve into simply wild animals. Another thing is if we use poloxium there will be an entire geberation that will forget everything they know and you are essentially depriving them of a future just because you think the lives of their descendants matter more than theirs. Life will advance again as it always does if yhat was the end of humanity atleast let is go out with bang rather than a flicker.
reply
Mr.
Nothing. Life has no meaning. You're a meat sack ruled by instinct tempered by rationality, all you do is because of instinct, all your wants and likes. It is impossible to escape this and if you deviate from instinct your brain stops producing dopamine that depresses you so you're forced to want what nature wants you to want, a mate, kids, wealth to raise such kids, the only way to escape it is to trick it, to delude yourself with religion or whatever else you find works. Life is literally pointless and we simply don't want to admit it but we all know it deep down. Because we know it and reject it we constantly look for meaning because we're thinking it cant be just that. But it is.
reply
Nothing. Life has no meaning. You're a meat sack ruled by instinct tempered by rationality, all you do is because of instinct, all your wants and likes. It is impossible to escape this and if you deviate from instinct your brain stops producing dopamine that depresses you so you're forced to want what nature wants you to want, a mate, kids, wealth to raise such kids, the only way to escape it is to trick it, to delude yourself with religion or whatever else you find works. Life is literally pointless and we simply don't want to admit it but we all know it deep down. Because we know it and reject it we constantly look for meaning because we're thinking it cant be just that. But it is.
reply
education
This is a very interesting dilemma, but I think I have to go with Polixate. Yes, we might not be able to keep our culture, and it's possible that doctor was wrong and that happiness would be lowered, but it's possible that at some point, we might be able to evolve and regain everything, after all, that's how some other species came to be, right? For example, insects gained larger sizes back in the past, but due to the oxygen being lowered, they changed back to nearly the very same form they were before, so it's possible we could discover one last bit of Neuronium, or a substitute, and regain the culture and everything!
reply
This is a very interesting dilemma, but I think I have to go with Polixate. Yes, we might not be able to keep our culture, and it's possible that doctor was wrong and that happiness would be lowered, but it's possible that at some point, we might be able to evolve and regain everything, after all, that's how some other species came to be, right? For example, insects gained larger sizes back in the past, but due to the oxygen being lowered, they changed back to nearly the very same form they were before, so it's possible we could discover one last bit of Neuronium, or a substitute, and regain the culture and everything!
reply
derkaiser420
I would argue for nuronium. Even though life and the continuation of our species is important, our culture ultimately makes us who we are. Without it, life would be meaningless. Without memories of loved ones, literature, music, or art, we would lose our souls as a species. That is more important. I would also argue that we should just change our lifestyles and stop using nuronium as a source of energy. Everyone would just have to deal with it and cope with life before technology and computers. Humans have done it for hundreds of thousands of years so technically we could have our memories and not all go extinct.
reply
I would argue for nuronium. Even though life and the continuation of our species is important, our culture ultimately makes us who we are. Without it, life would be meaningless. Without memories of loved ones, literature, music, or art, we would lose our souls as a species. That is more important. I would also argue that we should just change our lifestyles and stop using nuronium as a source of energy. Everyone would just have to deal with it and cope with life before technology and computers. Humans have done it for hundreds of thousands of years so technically we could have our memories and not all go extinct.
reply
Mimumi372
The video actually made the problem even more complex to me. If it was just a question of live with no conciousness or die with some of it, then I would choose death. But in the concrete situation provided by the video, there are numerous ways of resolving this seemingly two sided situation. What if we decreased the overall usage of Nuronium by only allowing some individuals to have it? Or maybe only allow a limited supply of it? Or maybe we vastly cut the pupolation to use less Nuronium overall, but keep their conciousness so that there is a chance of them finding a new source?
reply
The video actually made the problem even more complex to me. If it was just a question of live with no conciousness or die with some of it, then I would choose death. But in the concrete situation provided by the video, there are numerous ways of resolving this seemingly two sided situation. What if we decreased the overall usage of Nuronium by only allowing some individuals to have it? Or maybe only allow a limited supply of it? Or maybe we vastly cut the pupolation to use less Nuronium overall, but keep their conciousness so that there is a chance of them finding a new source?
reply
CharlotteModel
I would go to the comet and get the new chemical. Better to have it just in case, than not have the option to use it at all. Maybe people who would prefer not to reproduce a keep using the old chemical, and those who are willing to can take the new chemical. That way we re not taking away the choices of the individual.
Personally I would keep using the old chemical because I don t plan to have children and I would prefer to have a meaningful life now. I liked the argument that future generations aren t entitled to life if they don t exist yet.
reply
I would go to the comet and get the new chemical. Better to have it just in case, than not have the option to use it at all. Maybe people who would prefer not to reproduce a keep using the old chemical, and those who are willing to can take the new chemical. That way we re not taking away the choices of the individual.
Personally I would keep using the old chemical because I don t plan to have children and I would prefer to have a meaningful life now. I liked the argument that future generations aren t entitled to life if they don t exist yet.
reply
cherry
Wow this got me thinking. I'm pretty sure if I had to make this decision in real life it would take me much longer to decide but for now I'd go with team Nu I'm not thinking of humans but of other species. They too should have a chance to live and thrive without us humans making them go extinct. Humanity has caused enough damage to the world too so now its their time to pay the price. Leave the world with dignity rather than live a life devoid of meaning. A meaningless existence scares me and I don't want my future kids to question their purpose.
reply
Wow this got me thinking. I'm pretty sure if I had to make this decision in real life it would take me much longer to decide but for now I'd go with team Nu I'm not thinking of humans but of other species. They too should have a chance to live and thrive without us humans making them go extinct. Humanity has caused enough damage to the world too so now its their time to pay the price. Leave the world with dignity rather than live a life devoid of meaning. A meaningless existence scares me and I don't want my future kids to question their purpose.
reply
lescoop
Team Nuronium. Rather have 100 years of Ted-Ex than no Ted-Ex for the stone age generation.
Create a space time capsule: To whom this message can reach, if your see this message, it means our civilization has ended. We have spent the last 100 years recording all our history and achievements in our civilization so that we can go out with a bang, until the very end.
P. S. if you're a hostile ET race, we don't have anyone around for you to capture and enslave, like how you did with other civilizations that are backwards in technology.
reply
Team Nuronium. Rather have 100 years of Ted-Ex than no Ted-Ex for the stone age generation.
Create a space time capsule: To whom this message can reach, if your see this message, it means our civilization has ended. We have spent the last 100 years recording all our history and achievements in our civilization so that we can go out with a bang, until the very end.
P. S. if you're a hostile ET race, we don't have anyone around for you to capture and enslave, like how you did with other civilizations that are backwards in technology.
reply
MercerMer
Why do we have to choose just one? Does this species not evolve over generations and learn new ways to be creative? Ours does it all the time. We're still learning how the ancient Egyptians did the things they did. There might be a way to prolong both with difficulties, yes, but there will be more time and opportunities to work with and around the challenges. Not everyone wants children and there are ways to save genetic material for reproduction and work around infertilities. Isn't the point of life to find a way?
reply
Why do we have to choose just one? Does this species not evolve over generations and learn new ways to be creative? Ours does it all the time. We're still learning how the ancient Egyptians did the things they did. There might be a way to prolong both with difficulties, yes, but there will be more time and opportunities to work with and around the challenges. Not everyone wants children and there are ways to save genetic material for reproduction and work around infertilities. Isn't the point of life to find a way?
reply
pineapple
The personal value that culture and creativity has added to my life is immense. As a species were always looking out for our survival so it would make sense to choose Polixate. But the loss of beauty, art and creativity would isolate us from each other and kill us anyways. That's like becoming robotic. Surviving not living. Which is I'm more inclined towards Nuronium. Also bearing the greater hopes that in the 100 years some other solution might present itself and our existing science might help us research on it.
reply
The personal value that culture and creativity has added to my life is immense. As a species were always looking out for our survival so it would make sense to choose Polixate. But the loss of beauty, art and creativity would isolate us from each other and kill us anyways. That's like becoming robotic. Surviving not living. Which is I'm more inclined towards Nuronium. Also bearing the greater hopes that in the 100 years some other solution might present itself and our existing science might help us research on it.
reply
Nerdlin
I'm on team polluxate, I have hope that humanity will evolve their humanity back.
And even if they don't let me ask you this, are you ok with wiping out all dogs, cats, seals, or apes just because they aren't capable of higher thinking?
If you can't live without higher thinking then fine go out on your own terms, but don't take the rest of us down with you.
If there was enough time, a silver lining I would recommend is to build a vault that contains Nuronium for the others to live out their days in.
reply
I'm on team polluxate, I have hope that humanity will evolve their humanity back.
And even if they don't let me ask you this, are you ok with wiping out all dogs, cats, seals, or apes just because they aren't capable of higher thinking?
If you can't live without higher thinking then fine go out on your own terms, but don't take the rest of us down with you.
If there was enough time, a silver lining I would recommend is to build a vault that contains Nuronium for the others to live out their days in.
reply
Gerald
I know that this whole video is a parable and should probably not be taken literally but
How about having half nuronium and half polixate in the atmosphere
Or using nuronium in helmets instead of throwing it into atmosphere
Or giving the smart ones nuronium and everyone else polixate
Or using polixate and letting everyone have a turn at nuronium
I guess, when used as an analogy, these solutions mean that to ensure our survival, we can afford to get rid of most outlets for creativity, but not all.
reply
I know that this whole video is a parable and should probably not be taken literally but
How about having half nuronium and half polixate in the atmosphere
Or using nuronium in helmets instead of throwing it into atmosphere
Or giving the smart ones nuronium and everyone else polixate
Or using polixate and letting everyone have a turn at nuronium
I guess, when used as an analogy, these solutions mean that to ensure our survival, we can afford to get rid of most outlets for creativity, but not all.
reply
Rafael
The Polixate team kept out the role of evolution in their argument. The species would sooner or later evolve with Polixate, perhaps gaining the ability of long term memory and complex social organization. It did already happen with Neuronium since their species didn't magically appear, and their society is nothing but the product of milenia of evolution.
So for me: Polixate is a chance to start over and perhaps adapt, and stay with Neuronium is to accept their faith based on a concept built trough milena.
reply
The Polixate team kept out the role of evolution in their argument. The species would sooner or later evolve with Polixate, perhaps gaining the ability of long term memory and complex social organization. It did already happen with Neuronium since their species didn't magically appear, and their society is nothing but the product of milenia of evolution.
So for me: Polixate is a chance to start over and perhaps adapt, and stay with Neuronium is to accept their faith based on a concept built trough milena.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
