Yes, your third alternatives demolish afterlife-ism, but that is no argument they should have any claim on our loyalty.
I am in essential agreement with The Meaning of Life FAQ (no longer on the net) and with your 1998 statement, “But if it comes down to Us or Them, I’m with Them,” and am very sad that since 2002 human beings and their preferences have so thoroughly dominated your moral universe.
In your dialog with Joe, it is you, not Joe, IMO, who needs to dare to imagine—dare to imagine the existence of aspects of reality that trump the wishes of human beings—dare to imagine that humans are significant not as ends but rather as means to nonhuman ends.
(An implication of my view is that resources applied to life extension and cryonics are better spent educating and inspiring new human beings.)
Yes, your third alternatives demolish afterlife-ism, but that is no argument they should have any claim on our loyalty.
I am in essential agreement with The Meaning of Life FAQ (no longer on the net) and with your 1998 statement, “But if it comes down to Us or Them, I’m with Them,” and am very sad that since 2002 human beings and their preferences have so thoroughly dominated your moral universe.
In your dialog with Joe, it is you, not Joe, IMO, who needs to dare to imagine—dare to imagine the existence of aspects of reality that trump the wishes of human beings—dare to imagine that humans are significant not as ends but rather as means to nonhuman ends.
(An implication of my view is that resources applied to life extension and cryonics are better spent educating and inspiring new human beings.)