inherent, by definition.
theres a moral appeal to survival. at the same time, you're predicting (proposing) human extinction (or so I presume). the two conflict.
-
-
only if you suppose that survival necessarily equals human survival.
-
"if things cannot keep being, their value is limited. if they can’t be at all, their value is similarly non-extant. any ethics that is realist... will be an ethics of survival: what can we do to last longer?"
-
human survival is morally normative / human survival is irrelevant
-
If survival isn't normative, normativity might as well give up now.
-
Probably the only point of agreement between the two of us. The difference is for CN survival is (ultimately) the sole moral criterion, but also one that doesn't encompass human survival - neither of which I agree with.
-
don't get me wrong, humans may survive (however improbable that might seem), although that's a contingency, and possibly a question of identity. but survival never dies.
-
Survival is a concept or principle. Particular beings or creatures (or groups of) can die, but to say that "survival never dies" (survival itself will survive) is not meaningful, afaics.
-
survival is first and foremost a reality, which then gets conceptualised. and if grasping hard limits don't provide meaning, then meaning should give up right now.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.