[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Wasting resources" is a value judgement with no logical evidence. Every living thing consumes part of its environment and excretes toxins. You might as well accuse trees of "wasting" carbon dioxide and poisoning the environment with oxygen - which is exactly what happened before animals evolved to complete the cycle.

Waste or not depends on the judgment of conscious entities. If some resources are lost or destroyed without giving expected results, then at least some of those resources have been wasted. Lean management system identifies and classifies those wastes, so we can manage them to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our systems.
If evolutionary process on earth lasting for billions of years cannot produce conscious entities capable of building a multiplanetary civilization, then sooner or later the process will be reset, and whatever had been done would be wasted.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The identification of the universal moral compass based on the universal terminal goal allows moral problems to be converted into technical and scientific problems. The most moral decision is that which increases the chance for consciousness to survive the longest. Note that time constrain and limitations of other resources to choose and execute the decisions need to be taken into account as well.
Without a common moral standard, no amount of scientific evidence will be enough to solve a moral problem. It will have to be settled through brute force. Just like how an authoritarian government settles a dispute with an ethnic minority. Or the trial of Socrates.

[alancalverd]

Waste or not depends on the judgment of conscious entities.

It's an essential distinction made by all living things, which is why plants have stomata and animals have anuses.

[alancalverd]

Imagine if our ancestors didn't care if their descendants would live or die.

Like it or not, they will die eventually, as will every living thing.

There are plenty of fish in the sea, and their parents have absolutely no interest in the young. They just lay their eggs and move on.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Like it or not, they will die eventually, as will every living thing.

Death of an individual specimen is acceptable for the system it's being part of if its legacy still goes on.
In the absence of total destruction by catastrophic events, natural selection tends to increase the fitness of organisms, although the progress pace is not necessarily linear.
Senescence can be viewed as a self imposed restriction which reduce the fitness of individuals, but was necessary to improve the fitness of the system in the long term. Delayed reproduction also serves a similar function. Genetic and epigenetic improvement were not really feasible without generational succession. But science and technology can change that, and IMO we will see it in not so distant future.

All of these requires system thinking that unfortunately not many people are familiar with, just yet.

[alancalverd]

I really mean everything, not just the ones that are alive now. The whole of life is a transient phenomenon. ΔS > 0.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I really mean everything, not just the ones that are alive now. The whole of life is a transient phenomenon. ΔS > 0.

Does it mean that everything is meaningless? Including every one's goals and preferences?
Do you have any goal? Are they meaningless? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

I have goals because I have a limited time in which to have fun and do stuff. There is no ultimate meaning, only whatever temporary meanings, values or priorities we assign to the things that matter to us.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Aren't you interested to goals which last longer than your individual life span? Maybe some desired conditions for your children, or great great grand children?

[alancalverd]

I have a goal to launch and protect my descendants as well as I can. What they do with the knowledge and resources I bequeath them is up to them, not me. 

The graveyards are full of men who considered themselves indispensable.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have a goal to launch and protect my descendants as well as I can. What they do with the knowledge and resources I bequeath them is up to them, not me. 

The graveyards are full of men who considered themselves indispensable.

It seems like you are not planning on causing their extinction, which is a good sign.

[alancalverd]

Not immediately, but life will eventually extinguish without my help.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not immediately, but life will eventually extinguish without my help.

How long do you expect for it to last?
Would it be better for it to last sooner?
Would it be better for it to last later instead?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Track Record Argument for Utilitarianism

0:00 Introduction
1:00 Track record argument for utilitarianism
5:55 What did early utilitarianism believe?
9:55 Theories vs theorists
15:25 Why does a track record matter?
18:23 The circularity problem
23:38 Roads to moral knowledge

[alancalverd]

How long do you expect for it to last?

Good question. Bayes' theorem gives a best estimate of 4 billion years.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How long do you expect for it to last?

Good question. Bayes' theorem gives a best estimate of 4 billion years.

Is it possible to make it longer?
Why or why not?
Should we, or should we not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Track Record Argument for Utilitarianism

Currently, there are several versions of utility function which utilitarians want to maximize. Some of them want to maximize the sum of individual happiness, or some alternatives like pleasure and wellbeing.
Some want to minimize the sum of individual suffering, or some alternatives like pain and misery.
Some assign the same weight to every individual. Some other assign more weights to less fortunate individuals.
Some only consider immediate consequences of a decision, while some others also include indirect and longer term consequences. What's still lacking is the reason why they chose those parameters, instead of the alternatives?

[alancalverd]

Is it possible to make it longer?
Why or why not?
Should we, or should we not?

The sun is predicted to die in about 5 billion years, which places an upper limit on the sustainability of terrestrial life, and we know of no other.
Bayes' postulate is that "in the absence of conflicting information, today is like any other day" , so as life seems to have been around for 4.5 bn years, one's best guess at how long it will last is another 4.5 bn.

I tink the convergence of these figures is sufficient for the present purpose.

Excellent Bayesian line from The Big Bang Theory:

Howard: Guess who NASA want to send into space?
Sheldon: Mohammed Lee
H: How did you come up with that name?
S: I have no actual information but Mohammed is the most common first name, and Lee is the most common surname, so I gave myself a statistical advantage.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The sun is predicted to die in about 5 billion years, which places an upper limit on the sustainability of terrestrial life, and we know of no other.
Bayes' postulate is that "in the absence of conflicting information, today is like any other day" , so as life seems to have been around for 4.5 bn years, one's best guess at how long it will last is another 4.5 bn.

I tink the convergence of these figures is sufficient for the present purpose.

This thread is meant to discuss about the universal terminal goal, instead of goals in immediate present. We already know that observable universe is much larger than the pale blue dot which all of human ever existed prior to 20th century.
What makes you think that consciousness must depend on the sun? What prevents it from going or expanding to other solar systems?

[alancalverd]

Please define consciousness, and show your evidence that it exists elsewhere.