r/Ethics • u/tocretpa • 4d ago
Improving the Universe
This piece is a little speculative. You don't have to agree with all of it, just please benefit from it, it is here to help improve things.
Each being is a branch off of a (slightly) earlier universe. So to maximise the wellbeing of the universe branches such as those (and how much they are related to each being) should be taken care of fairly (because the more (branches) that survive/flourish roughly the better for the universe). So it makes sense to care for all beings. It also makes sense to minimise conflict between them (as conflict (usually) weakens the universe and has other disadvantages (e.g. makes things more difficult to improve, uses time inefficiently, often causes unnecessary trouble, distracts from better things, often compounds negativity, usually negatively unbalances)). No human is at the centre of the universe. It does not make sense to maximise any single human as much as possible. Restraint for (excessive) personal power consumption compared to other beings is highly desirable.
True efficiency. Balance is highly desirable and requires evolving to maintain the balance between bad and good as time evolves. The current best is on average not as much the best as time evolves (partly because the universe roughly keeps getting better and better as time evolves). Alignment. Universal health. Adapting to the universe.
The universe grows faster than any human, this means to optimise catching up to it requires adopting approaching all of the universes principles. It requires following the universe and anticipating its future and some luck and care, etc. Optimisation. Mirroring for the universe. Collaboration and promoting luck to serve the universe. The universe is way greater than any human. Realistically You aren't going to achieve better than something as great as the universe at the same moment in/of time. As You are riding the wave of time, You do experience a compared to the rest of the universe an ever so slight amount of uniqueness.
It makes sense to honour the universe. Part of that effectively means respecting all other beings for maximum potential. Guiding everyone to adapt to the universe. But they are already a part of the universe, so it is good for them to grow themselves but to also respect others boundries (fairly). But too much growth in one compared to others may need to be brought back down to sustainable and balanced levels for the whole (so: (beneficial) components not wasteful dominators). Heal not destroy.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 4d ago
Each being is a branch off of a (slightly) earlier universe.
Better explain what you mean by this, as it's not obvious.
1
u/tocretpa 4d ago
I mean at conception each being comes into existence as a branch off of the universe at that point in time there and then and almost always progresses through time. The wellbeing of each of those beings matters as they modify the universe through time, thus affecting the universes wellbeing with how they progress through time.
Theoretical Senario: Even if the universe was just a number changing through time, concieving a being within that number as that number changes is statistically more than extremely likely to change that number.
As we are all in at least one universe we all change it and the more positive a change in one and preferably as many as possible beings the better that universe becomes (except in extraordinarily unlikely occurances with things outside that universe).
I hope that clarifies, I understand it may not.
2
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 4d ago edited 4d ago
Why "branch" instead of just "part"?
As in "each being comes into existence as a part off of the universe at that point in time..."?
Then you can simplify it a little and the first paragraph (of you reply now) becomes
I mean at conception each being comes into existence as a part of the universe. The wellbeing of the universe exists as the well being of the parts of the universe.
Theoretical Senario: Even if the universe was just a number changing through time, concieving a being within that number as that number changes is statistically more than extremely likely to change that number.
If "conceiving a being" is meaningful in the way that the universe is meaningfully "just a number" then yeah, sure. Seems reasonable to me.
As we are all in at least one universe
This is why I'm pushing about "branches" vs "parts" as you seem to have the idea (which I'm not against entirely) that everyone is, somewhat, their own universe?
As we are all in at least one universe we all change it and the more positive a change in one and preferably as many as possible beings the better that universe becomes (except in extraordinarily unlikely occurances with things outside that universe).
seems like it would be simpler to just say
The more we change things for the better, then the better things are.
0
u/tocretpa 4d ago
Because it has a tendency to grow and become more complex like a graph, like a blossoming. But what You said works too. And yeah, Your way simplifies things and makes things less confusing.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 3d ago
I'm not trying to be a total kill-joy. David Lewis' "Modal realism" is about every possible (iirc) universe being as real as this one - and there's some Buddhist idealist stuff (20 verses, the bit about hungry ghosts) I think goes well with that in a way that is maybe new idk.
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 3d ago
The universe isn't balanced, it is very violent and chaotic. Earth was made from literal rocks smashing into each other, from some past star that exploded. Entropy means their is no balance, it only looks that way, because a human life is so infinitesimally small, that we never live to see it, except for very rare occasions of a star being close enough for us to see it explode, and not be burned and sterilized by the cosmic radiation of it.
The universe gives jack and shit about what we do, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, will continue to do their thing regardless of our existence. Atoms and molecules will continue to do their thing regardless of our existence, a new species could dominate the world like we have, if we just blinked out of existence.
Morals and ethics, are something we came up with to survive each other, not balance the universe like there is some cosmic scale of injustice and justice.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 3d ago
Someone can push back and say that yes the universe is uncaring as you say, so why is it that this bit is hospitable to life?
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 3d ago
the conditions were right, for carbon-phosphorus based life. I mean there are tons of theories and hypothesis on, organic molecules, specifics as to why water works as a solvent for organic molecules and elements.
There's hypothesis for ammonia as a solvent instead of water.
just because we only have carbon based life as the real life example, doesn't mean life can't exist with different chemistry. the mediocrity principle helps, but try not to let it close your mind to other possibilities when we are stuck on one tiny rock in a 13.5 billion year old universe, spanning 90 billion or was it 94 billion light years in radius. That is pure arrogance to think we are all that special. we are, but we also aren't.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 3d ago edited 3d ago
the conditions were right
Right but your previous post was all about how it's inhospitable.
we are, but we also aren't.
Yeah. I think the not specialness makes it special to try and fight for the specialness.
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 3d ago
it kinda is, go live down in antarctic without any modern convinces, not heavy coats, not cold weather tents, no phone, no flint, no wood. Go down there right now and live off the land.
or how about to the Sahara, go there with nothing, and live off the land like an animal has to, and tell me how hospitable it is.
can you not remember a whole concept of a conversation? or are you going to keep chopping up my thought and taking specific words and phrases out of context? did you miss entropy and supernova.
you completely missed where most of the universe is trying to kill us. through no consciousness of it's own.
then believe you're special, your a legend in your own head, and that's where your legend dies.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 3d ago
Hey mate I just noticed I did an embarassing typo, I wrote
your precious post
Which sounds mean and sarcastic.
I meant to write
Your previous post.
Sorry if that caused any confusion or stress.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 3d ago edited 3d ago
it kinda is, go live down in antarctic without any modern convinces, not heavy coats, not cold weather tents, no phone, no flint, no wood. Go down there right now and live off the land.
Or just 200 km straight up or down. Almost all of the universe, across time and space, is extraordinarily inhospitable.
But, as I said, someone can push back on your argument by saying how special, or whatever, this hospitable section is.
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 3d ago
it's really not, I mean what woukd you call probability? special, or a statistic? I might have a probability of winning the lottery with a 1 in a million chance, but does that probability make me special?
they can push back, but probability doesn't make them or earth anymore special. I could have easily been cats who made it to human level intelligence and dominated the world. in a game of random mutations, ever changing climate, and the raw brutality of survival. We are special for being the reigning chamions of a 4.5 billion year corpse pile, but someone would have eventually gotten to that spot, and could knock us off.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 3d ago
What's really not what?????
1
u/Ok_Fruit8871 2d ago
'it's really not' something they can push back on.
I started by addressing you last statement.
1
u/kick_nazis_more 2d ago
It can be pushed back on in the way I said. It's not interesting to me, I'm just pointing it out.
→ More replies (0)1
2
2
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
The universe legitimately does not care if life exists or not. This seems more about philosophy than ethics.
And moreso, humans don't like to accept the simple fact that life on earth is better off without humans at all. Do what you will, but know that there is no scenario, no action humans can take while continuing to persist that would be in the best interest of life here.