[alancalverd]

It is a reasonable conclusion from the observation of evolution, that "normal" behavior, i.e. that which is statistically the norm,  is generally beneficial to the species and by Bayesian principles, is also a priori that which is most likely to benefit the individual (except for bees).

It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium  (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.

[alancalverd]

We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.

What do you think about vaccine mandate, safety belt for car driver, or helmet for motorcyclists?

1. Anyone who refuses vaccination (other than on genuine medical grounds) should be treated as a social outcast and a potential threat to everyone else. Segregation of conscientious objectors in a time of conflict is perfectly normal in a civilised society, and accepted by those who object. No reason to change the principle when the enemy is a virus. 

2. Safety belts have significantly reduced the impact of motoring on emergency and rehabilitation medical services but also the availability of cadaver organs for transplant. Now there's a better moral conundrum than any runaway trolley! 

3. The compulsory wearing of helmets has most significantly reduced the number of animals reduced to vegetables by head injury. Unfortunately the well-meaning turban concession to a few well-meaning Sikhs has turned into a legal nightmare in which there is a precedent for religious belief to outweigh common sense and influence statute law.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is a reasonable conclusion from the observation of evolution, that "normal" behavior, i.e. that which is statistically the norm,  is generally beneficial to the species and by Bayesian principles, is also a priori that which is most likely to benefit the individual (except for bees).

What makes the bees different? Are they the only one?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium  (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.

What do you expect to happen if humans go extinct in near future?
Will other species that survive stay how they are now indefinitely? Will some of them evolve to replace the ecological niche left out by humans? Will they follow the path of human evolution and develop science and technology? Will they repeat humans' mistakes? What makes you sure that they will be wiser?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Anyone who refuses vaccination (other than on genuine medical grounds) should be treated as a social outcast and a potential threat to everyone else. Segregation of conscientious objectors in a time of conflict is perfectly normal in a civilised society, and accepted by those who object. No reason to change the principle when the enemy is a virus. 

What if they are the majority in a society? Who will be the outcast?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

2. Safety belts have significantly reduced the impact of motoring on emergency and rehabilitation medical services but also the availability of cadaver organs for transplant. Now there's a better moral conundrum than any runaway trolley! 

Human organ transplant will soon be a  thing of the past. Just like animal farming, floppy disks, and ICE cars.

[alancalverd]

Bees: I can't think of another animal which necessarily and inevitably dies whilst protecting its family. Kamikaze was as close as any other species has come.

If humans become extinct, as around Chernobyl, wolves and big cats will become top predators on large land masses, with dogs prevailing on islands.

If a virus is sufficiently deadly or disabling, the vaccinated minority will end up in charge. That's the theory behind biological warfare.

Artificial organs are expensive and unreliable. Human cadaver organs are free waste products, with millions of years of R&D behind them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Artificial organs are expensive and unreliable.

Yet. Retrospectively, computers were expensive and unreliable. So were cell phones.

Human cadaver organs are free waste products, with millions of years of R&D behind them.

They have their own problems. In terms of compatibility, availability, storage and transport issue.

[alancalverd]

Those problems (apart from decreasing availability) have been solved at very low cost. Long term biocompatibility and reliability of artificial organs remains questionable after 70 years of intensive and expensive R&D on hearts and dialysers.

Part of the problem is the need to solve three major problems: functional efficiency, power supply, and repair.

Natural organs tend to function continuously at the demanded efficiency from birth to total system collapse some 70 - 100 years later, and to develop capacity in response to longterm variations of mean or peak  demand. Not many machines have ever achieved that.

Natural organs derive all their power requirements from nontoxic substrates and oxygen delivered by blood. Whilst some "passive" components may work by catalysing such reactions, the problems of catalyst poisoning and lack of inherent development capability don't bode well for longterm implantation.

Natural organs have a significant capacity for selfrepair from all sorts of mechanical or chemical insults, including normal wear and tear, using only the chemicals delivered by the bloodstream.

All functional systems produce waste, so any replacement organ must be compatible with the existing waste disposal system,

Even the simplest approach can run into unsuspected problems. I spent some time looking at a very reliable heart assist device that used a brushless rotor-turbine to pump blood. It turned out that the pulsatile nature of a real heart is actually important to prevent clotting, but reversing the rotor drive dissipates a lot of heat and damages blood cells, so we need something closer to a diaphragm pump - and you end up with something that looks remarkably like a natural heart, but with a flexible diaphragm that doesn''t last as long as the turbo, can't repair itself, and still needs 5 watts of electrical power from somewhere.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Artificial organs aren't necessarily made from non-biological origin. They can have the same genetic make up as the recipient, e.g. from their own stem cells which are grown through epigenetic signalings to form desired organs.
There might be still some technical challenges, but they will solve ethical problems. They don't create incentives to have someone else die to get their organs.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium  (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.

What do you expect to happen if humans go extinct in near future?
Will other species that survive stay how they are now indefinitely? Will some of them evolve to replace the ecological niche left out by humans? Will they follow the path of human evolution and develop science and technology? Will they repeat humans' mistakes? What makes you sure that they will be wiser?

I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions above. To be fair, I'll also try to answer them in my opinion.
The other species will continue the evolutionary process. The details of their evolutionary paths will depend on environmental changes at that time.
Some of them may improve their cognitive abilities. Given enough time, they might get close to, or even exceed current human levels.
They will also develop science and technology. They will repeat some of human's mistakes. They will also make new mistakes haven't been done by humans.
The problem is, the time required for the process can be very long. It might even exceed the time when the earth becomes no longer habitable to any living organisms. There's no guarantee that they will be able to pass the great filter. In this regards, humans have a clear advantage in the form of a head start.

[alancalverd]

The questions have been answered by the Chernobyl "experiment" I mentioned earlier. Re-wilding happens quite quickly in the absence of humans and we can observe the rebalancing of the ecology in real time.

The problem with humans is their ability to invent obstacles to progress, like religion and politics, and the fact that they measure progress by their ability to survive in hostile environments, whilst intelligent animals just stay where the climate suits them, and enjoy life.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The questions have been answered by the Chernobyl "experiment" I mentioned earlier. Re-wilding happens quite quickly in the absence of humans and we can observe the rebalancing of the ecology in real time.

How long will it take them to develop human level consciousness? How long will they develop the ability to pass the great filter?

The problem with humans is their ability to invent obstacles to progress, like religion and politics, and the fact that they measure progress by their ability to survive in hostile environments, whilst intelligent animals just stay where the climate suits them, and enjoy life.

Humans also have the ability to invent solutions. Not everyone has to survive. As long as enough number of humans don't die, they will be able to have a stable society. That's why having independent societies in artificial cities in space or other planets is preferable, because it can increase our chance to pass the great filter.

[alancalverd]

"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies. Not sure what you mean by the "great filter".

There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies.

I've proposed it's definition as the ability to determine one's own future. What makes you think that human's consciousness is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not sure what you mean by the "great filter".

The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.[1][2]

The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe implies that something is wrong with one or more of the arguments (from various scientific disciplines) that the appearance of advanced intelligent life is probable; this observation is conceptualized in terms of a "Great Filter" which acts to reduce the great number of sites where intelligent life might arise to the tiny number of intelligent species with advanced civilizations actually observed (currently just one: human).[3] This probability threshold, which could lie behind us (in our past) or in front of us (in our future), might work as a barrier to the evolution of intelligent life, or as a high probability of self-destruction.[1][4] The main counter-intuitive conclusion of this argument is that the easier it was for life to evolve to our stage, the bleaker our future chances probably are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.

Does the sun alive?

[alancalverd]

The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.

But it clearly has happened, so there is no Great Filter.

[alancalverd]

"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies.

I've proposed it's definition as the ability to determine one's own future. What makes you think that human's consciousness is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies?

An interesting definition. So prisoners and slaves have no consciousness, and soldiers, who are trained to be extremely conscious of everything around them, have very limited control of their future therefore less consciousness than Artemia Salina, which can go into a state of longterm hibernation when dehydrated, and re-emerge when it rains. Wolves and daisies are capable of surviving unaided in environments where humans require all sorts of support. 

[alancalverd]

There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.

Does the sun alive?

It's not in equilibrium with anything else.