[asveikau]

Fair points. My "devil's advocate" type of stance would be that for every person who brings the future 5 years early, there are millions more who don't, some of them not for lack of trying, others might not even get to try due to circumstance (health, socioeconomic status, etc.). Those who succeed by your "5 years early" definition are eclipsed by the people who 30 years later set the world ahead 100 years, or whatever, and so on...

Take a long enough view and maybe humanity meets some crisis and gets set back or stops altogether - is that 5 years going to matter then? It sounds defeatist and negative but IMO a valid question.

I'm not going to fault you or anyone for trying to be in that category that sets the world ahead N years, but there is also no shame in being part of the much larger group who lives and dies without accomplishing it, or in admitting that it's very rare to get there.

[PeterisP]

5 years is not the timeframe to think about - how about 5 minutes? Approximately every 5 minutes someone dies from cancer. We might at some point cure cancer - if so, accelerating that point by 5 minutes is equivalent to saving a life, and if your actions cause that point to be delayed by 5 minutes, than that's essentially murder.

Think about it. Most people don't have any effect on that whatsoever, but there are many publicly visible people in medicine, politics, tech, research and finance that do have a much larger impact on it than 5 minutes.

And cancer is just one tiny part of it all. I believe that at some point in future we might reach an event where we eliminate almost all death as such; or an event where we destroy ourselves completely. A somewhat cynical implication of this could be, playing the devils advocate, that there are exactly two kinds of actions (and people?) - those that change some +/- epsilon to one of these two events, and those that are irrelevant.

[asveikau]

> A somewhat cynical implication of this could be, playing the devils advocate, that there are exactly two kinds of actions (and people?) - those that change some +/- epsilon to one of these two events, and those that are irrelevant.

I was with you until somewhere around here. As I said I don't see any shame that one might be in the "irrelevant" group. Maybe you tried and failed. Maybe something else prevented you from doing that. Maybe you just didn't have it in you. It seems wrong get judgmental on that.

[PeterisP]

I'd believe the key difference is in the possibility. Like, if I'm peacefully watching a sunset while a kid drowns on the other side of the world, then it's not shameful in any way; but if I'm peacefully watching a sunset on a beach while a kid is drowning next to me, then people should be judgemental.

It's perfectly understandable that most (perhaps even 99+%?) of the global population won't have any non-local influence, and that's okay, it can't reasonably be much different. However, there are things that scale, and they have a disproportionally large effect. For example, politicians are a particular group who can have huge long-term impact even as unintentional side effects; so are public NGOs. And many of them are intentionally doing things that cause delay in much-needed technologies or increase risk of us killing ourselves - I'd say that this is equivalent to [mass-]murder, even if the deaths are not specific, named individuals but "just a statistic"; and not today but a bit in the future. Perhaps we should be more judgemental about that, instead of agreeing to disagree.

[artyomkazak]

Why yes, I agree that the vast majority of people aren't very high in the Humanity Table of Records (to put it mildly). However, I think that if you're trying to set the world ahead purely to appear higher in the record table, you're misguided.

I'm not saying I can't understand the human desire to be liked, or adored, or remembered after your death, or considered to be the Best Human to Ever Live on This Planet. I can. But what I can't understand is why so many people try to justify such feelings.