[hypothetical] The existential threat of 2102

[El_Machinae]

Is it because 'extinction' is being held up as one of the scenarios? I can see that there's a fairly vast difference between a 23rd century human civilization and a boiling rock with only microbes. But that's just one metric.

Consider another possible future. In the future, we might find a 'steady state' of humanity where there're only a few billion people in perpetuity. This could be because we caused enough ecological devastation that we derail progress. OTOH, a different future would be one where humanity spreads interstellarly.

Neither scenario occurs to either myself or my children. It's too far in the future. But one scenario nearly requires that you & I be forced to contribute into projects that won't benefit us. The difference is between having a few billion humans and having quadrillions of humans.

So why is the scenario "10 billion humans or NO humans" so different from "a few billion humans or quadrillions of humans"? Winner suggested that mass enslavement might be justified in one scenario, but there sheer scale of the second scenario (numerically) dwarfs the first scenario.

 

[strijder20]

Just get all the Chinese in the world to jump at the same time and we will push the earth away from the trajectory of the asteroids.

Challenge completed.

Basic psychics teaches you that is not going to work.
Action and reaction, my friend

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I can see that there's a fairly vast difference between a 23rd century human civilization and a boiling rock with only microbes.

Err... okay? ^^ I certainly hope so! Unless you want to be all nihilistic.

Consider another possible future. In the future, we might find a 'steady state' of humanity where there're only a few billion people in perpetuity. This could be because we caused enough ecological devastation that we derail progress. OTOH, a different future would be one where humanity spreads interstellarly.[...]The difference is between having a few billion humans and having quadrillions of humans.

So why is the scenario "10 billion humans or NO humans" so different from "a few billion humans or quadrillions of humans"?

As already said, IMO, the prevention of every potential life is morally wrong in itself (unless somehow justifiable by other moral values). So going with that, your two scenarios are not that different. And yes, the second one would justify temporary mass-enslavement as well if you ask me. However, as I already mentioned, too, this isn't just a matter of morality, but of values which go beyond morality and have more something to do with the general mentality of humans. Our group-mentality and the will to have this group survive, rooted in our evolutionary history. This will has no particular moral justification, it just is a value that defines us, including me, and that makes me want the human race to continue.
So the asteroid threatening to wipe out humanity is not just a question of morality, but of human instinct. And while morality is all well and good - it alone does not suffice to give us meaning. I think we need those "instinctive values" for that, too. And in correspondence with that, I think the continuation of our race has a special emotional value worth the sacrifices of some contemporary people - or even of all contemporary people. But as said, there is also a moral argument to be had.