> we should be focusing on genetically engineering a race of super-empaths. By a super-empath, I mean a person that could feel any death within radius of earth as a grueling experience.
There's a reason we don't have this ability. People are fond of life precisely because we can't feel the suffering of others, or for that matter, remember our own suffering for very long. A super-empath is an evolutionary dead end, which is why there aren't any.
Nice idea in a philosophical sense, but not practical.
> but that is what we need.
On what basis? Don't you think evolution provides meaningful answers to questions like this? If you want to know how evolution reacts to this idea (to stretch a concept to its breaking point), just count the super-empaths you know. Then count their devoted followers.
> A logical person might detonate a nuke. However a super-empath cannot without suffering horrifically.
Such a person would quickly fall victim to someone who would not suffer horrifically by detonating a nuke. How can you not see that?
The universe is morally neutral. There's no benevolent superbeing that rewards the sensitive souls you're describing. Indeed, to understand this idea's history, study religion, the most ruthless and bloodthirsty human institution ever imagined.
We are talking engineering, right? Like making something, knowing it would break. You'd just make sure they are the people holding the trigger. Evolutionary dead end or not.
>There's a reason we don't have this ability. People are fond of life precisely because we can't feel the suffering of others, or for that matter, remember our own suffering for very long. A super-empath is an evolutionary dead end, which is why there aren't any.
We are fond of life because we emulate in our minds how it works and then translate those feelings to ourselves. Super-empath would work on a much more detailed scale. There are some context in which super-empaths could prove to be an evolutionary viable, but they are firmly in the realm of SF.
> Indeed, to understand this idea's history, study religion, the most ruthless and bloodthirsty human institution ever imagined.
I don't understand the idea of singling out religion. Sure it is probably outstayed it's welcome at this point, but it had a very important, positive even, impact on overall life of individuals.
There's a reason we don't have this ability. People are fond of life precisely because we can't feel the suffering of others, or for that matter, remember our own suffering for very long. A super-empath is an evolutionary dead end, which is why there aren't any.
Nice idea in a philosophical sense, but not practical.
> but that is what we need.
On what basis? Don't you think evolution provides meaningful answers to questions like this? If you want to know how evolution reacts to this idea (to stretch a concept to its breaking point), just count the super-empaths you know. Then count their devoted followers.
> A logical person might detonate a nuke. However a super-empath cannot without suffering horrifically.
Such a person would quickly fall victim to someone who would not suffer horrifically by detonating a nuke. How can you not see that?
The universe is morally neutral. There's no benevolent superbeing that rewards the sensitive souls you're describing. Indeed, to understand this idea's history, study religion, the most ruthless and bloodthirsty human institution ever imagined.