mr1001nights

Most people would agree that "a billion people have more worth than one". Almost no one would see it the other way around and choose to save the life of one person at the expense of a billion people. Thus our sense of justice almost universally agrees on this point. If you think that the decision of these humans to choose to save a billion people over one is "subjective", I'm sorry, but that's as objective and clear as human reality gets. You'd have to explain the implications (as far as our beliefs and actions goes) of the word "subjective" as you use it. Otherwise it has no meaning. Please do. Show me evidence. Also, your phrase was "agriculture developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago". You seem to not want to admit that you're about 5,000 years off (that it developed more like between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago) because the error is of such magnitude, that it casts doubt on everything else you say about these issues. Basically, such serious blunders show that you might be trying to refute highly researched scholars and a scientific consensus on the tremendous number of extinctions that we have caused by spending a few minutes hastily surfing wikipedia articles on the issue. The fact that the last species of Mammoth held out only in remote niches proves that by the time agriculture started, the Mammoth was already almost gone, and that, furthermore, the areas of initial agricultural development do not coincide with those remote niches. Hence we can safely say, to repeat myself in the last post, that: "The uncertainties surrounding the Mammoth's extinction cannot be extrapolated to the modern period, especially not to our current highly destructive industrialized society with 7.3 billion humans...as we get deeper into civilization and population growth, we see a clearer correlation with species extinctions." So if you torture and kill someone's dog, you don't think that's an immoral action?

Where did you get the 15,000 year number???. You're like 5000 years off. It's more like between 10,000-5,000 years ago. This is what wikipedia says about the Neolithic and Agriculture: As far as the Mammoth goes, by the time agriculture got going, it was gone except in a few small remote places. In other words, as we get deeper into civilization and population growth, we see a clearer correlation with species extinctions. The uncertainties surrounding the Mammoth's extinction cannot be extrapolated to the modern period, especially not to our current highly destructive industrialized society with 7.3 billion humans. Is someone killing you performing an immoral action, in your view? And how is that action different from the killing of other species? Sure we have. It's necessary for the survival of millions of species who have collectively more worth than humanity. What is the underlying theory behind the arguments you would put forth if someone were to put a gun to your temple and you were trying to convince them not to pull the trigger? How are those different from the arguments one can put forth to defend the lives of other species?

Corporations like the ones Moore speaks for have as a primary duty to maximize profit for stockholders. That's not the case for most institutions of scientific research. You'd have to take each one of those scientists that make up the scientific consensus, and show me how they have biases and interests that even come close to Moore's. They present serious studies and get paid to conduct scientific research, not to come up with a particular result. With Moore and the industries he speaks for it's easy to see the bias--especially when they don't even present alternative studies. Anytime you deprive sentient organisms of things like food and habitat, or when you poison and degrade the places where they eat, drink and breathe etc it is safe to assume that the animal does not feel better than when those things haven't happened. We can try it with you for a few weeks and see if you suffer. The prospects for humanity don't look good. It's not unreasonable to consider as a very real possibility that our lifestyle will lead us to extinction in less than a thousand years. It's much safer to bet on organisms like cockroaches and ants, which have already been here for over 100 million years and will likely be here for millions more, long after we're gone. The expansion of the sun is projected to happen so far into the future (billions of years) that to assume we will still be around is not reasonable. As for the meteors, as I said, large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So our chances of being around when it happens are also not likely. Even if it happened next year, we couldn't stop it anyway. Just read my post where I talk about what NASA says about this. You're justifying humans causing innumerable species to go extinct now and in the near future--depriving them of their life experience on this planet-- on the grounds that billions of years from now, when "the sun fries the planet" we 1) will still be around 2) will be able to take all those species "samples" in spaceships to a suitable environment somewhere else many light years away. Of course, even if we entertained this impossible lunacy, we don't have any samples for 99.999% of the species we are driving to extinction and don't have even the prospects of getting these samples from species which die before we even knew almost anything about them. Of course, these species went extinct mostly because we deprived them of their habitat, so even if we got the samples, their absence of a habitat would render the samples useless. The whole idea is so outlandish that it's not worth discussing. You're grasping at straws here because you don't want to accept the simple facts that 1) this planet is all we have and that we're destroying its biosphere. 2) our worth is less than those of the species we have already destroyed and are projected to destroy. Humans live in and contribute to collective cultural systems that destroy the environment. Studies of even the least productive and least consumeristic of individuals in these systems yield a considerable footprint size. Furthermore, even these individuals tend to depend on the greater productivity/consumerism of the individuals that keep the system going. We are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, and if you want to minimize your destruction of the environment, the best action is to not have children. As I said, suicide is too much to ask from anybody. Not sure if guilt is the right attitude to finding out that we're driving so many species to extinction. But pride certainly isn't. Available evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens has an unacceptable destructive potential. I think we have the potential to realize what we are, even if it's hard to swallow.

Not sure if this Moore guy can, without studies of his own, refute the consensus of thousands of scientists. Videos such as these don't really give him much credibility... Corporations like the ones Moore speaks for have as a primary duty to maximize profit for stockholders. That's not the case for most institutions of scientific research. You'd have to take each one of those scientists that make up the scientific consensus, and show me how they have biases and interests that even come close to Moore's. They present serious studies and get paid to conduct scientific research, not to come up with a particular result. With Moore and the industries he speaks for it's easy to see the bias--especially when they don't even present alternative studies. Anytime you deprive sentient organisms of things like food and habitat, or when you poison and degrade the places where they eat, drink and breathe etc it is safe to assume that the animal does not feel better than when those things haven't happened. We can try it with you for a few weeks and see if you suffer. The prospects for humanity don't look good. It's not unreasonable to consider as a very real possibility that our lifestyle will lead us to extinction in less than a thousand years. It's much safer to bet on organisms like cockroaches and ants, which have already been here for over 100 million years and will likely be here for millions more, long after we're gone. once again, the expansion of the sun is projected to happen so far into the future (billions of years) that to assume we will still be around is not reasonable. As for the meteors, as I said, large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So our chances of being around when it happens are also not likely. Even if it happened next year, we couldn't stop it anyway. Just read my post where I talk about what NASA says about this. You're basically saying "let a million species die for my pie in the sky". In other words, you're justifying humans causing innumerable species to go extinct now and in the near future--depriving them of their life experience on this planet-- on the grounds that billions of years from now, when "the sun fries the planet" we 1) will still be around 2) will be able to take all those species "samples" in spaceships to a suitable environment somewhere else many light years away. Of course, even if we entertained this impossible lunacy, we don't have any samples for 99.999% of the species we are driving to extinction and don't have even the prospects of getting these samples from species which die before we even knew almost anything about them. Of course, these species went extinct mostly because we deprived them of their habitat, so even if we got the samples, their absence of a habitat would render the samples useless. The whole idea is so outlandish that it's not worth discussing. You're grasping at straws here because you don't want to accept the simple facts that 1) this planet is all we have and that we're destroying its biosphere. 2) our worth is less than those of the species we have already destroyed and are projected to destroy. You overrate individuality. Humans live in and contribute to collective cultural systems that destroy the environment. Studies of even the least productive and least consumeristic of individuals in these systems yield a considerable footprint size. Furthermore, even these individuals tend to depend on the greater productivity/consumerism of the individuals that keep the system going. Even though I live in a small room on a salary of under $25 grand/year and have never had a car; as a citizen of a major city, my footprint is unacceptable and it would be even if i was homeless or a Buddhist monk. I fully accept this, as well as the footprint prospects of my potential progeny. That's why I've decided to not have children. There's nothing self-refuting about this. It is simply accepting that we are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, and if you want to minimize your destruction of the environment, the best action is to not have children. As I said, suicide is too much toi ask from anybody. Not sure if guilt is the right attitude to finding out that we're driving so many species to extinction. But pride certainly isn't. Available evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens has an unacceptable destructive potential. I think we have the potential to realize what we are, even if it's hard to swallow.

I don't believe humans will ever decide to go extinct. I'm just articulating what I think are the unassailable moral and intellectual arguments for why they should.

I never drew any correlation between the Mammoth and anything else. I never even mentioned the Mammoth. You attributions are thus a red herring. The Mammoth's extinction happened before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No serious scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity. I agree that one can take an immoral position and try to "ensure the survival" of the most destructive species in the history of the planet (Homo Sapiens) at the expense of millions of other species. But one can also take a moral position and come to the conclusion articulated by Les Knight that "If we use a balance scale like Blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other—giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales—the scales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage."

That's just an interview in which Moore makes statements, but doesn't present any studies of his own. Why don't you post some studies like I did? Do you notice how the burden of proof decreases enormously when you want to win an argument? Also, according to the wikipedia links, Moore is not the "founder" of Greenpeace, but rather someone who was "a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986" and is now a "frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups". According to Greenpeace, he is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry." The evidence all indicates that we have increased the background rate of extinction enormously. And yes, many species do suffer as they are driven to extinction. It means that based on what we know and available evidence, the chances are extremely slim. To act rationally, you cannot plan your life assuming you will win the lottery. Once again, no evidence at all of that. But quite the opposite: Evidence indicates that we're the single most destructive species in the history of the planet. It takes quite an Orwellian effort to not only deny that, but to assert the exact opposite. Sure there is. Here's one way to measure it http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

Here's some scientific evidence. http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392 We can try to calculate your footprint, if you so desire.

Comparing the ecocide of millions of species with crushing rocks or other inanimate objects isn't appropriate. Rocks don't suffer or experience joy and stimulae like animals do. Your statement seems to imply that our killing of animals and species is comparable to what happens in nature anyway. This is not true. Humans have increased the background rate of extinction thousands of times, as well as the background rate of killing and infliction of suffering. You seem to be saying that millions of species who would have otherwise experienced life for many years, must all die in order to give 1 species (humanity) a microscopically slim (I dare say zero) chance of "outliving the sun". Doesn't seem very moral or reasonable. A somewhat less extreme version of this argument is that humans need to be around to stop a meteor. However, the average life span of a species according to Ernst Mayr is about 100,000 years. This includes Homo Sapiens. Large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So the probability that our lifespan will coincide with a collision is extremely unlikely. Also, 2 years ago the following conversation took place between a congressman and the principal investigator for NASA's EPOXY mission: REP. STEWART: ... are we technologically capable of launching something that could intercept [an asteroid]? ... DR. A'HEARN: No. If we had spacecraft plans on the books already, that would take a year ... I mean a typical small mission ... takes four years from approval to start to launch ... If we cared about life on the planet we'd realize that we are the equivalent of a large meteor and so we would remove ourselves from the equation by not breeding. That seems like the strongest "moral argument" anyone can make.

Well, when the background rate of extinction is increased thousands of times, as we have done in what is termed the "Holocene extinction", the word "ecocide"and "destruction" of the biosphere seems appropriate. You talk about the Quaternary to try to show that maybe it wasn't humans that killed the megafauna, but that is before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity. I think many people would disagree that killing animals for food belongs to the same moral category as killing them for sport or as a result of the various ideological goals and massive greed we see in civilization. Especially when this results in huge numbers of species going extinct. Many other creatures have been "top of the food chain" without erasing their compatibility with the environment and causing extinction events. Certainly, the current alarming rate of extinctions is not projected to benefit humanity. Many species do experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, that make life worth living. And many do suffer as they are driven to extinction. Certainly you wouldn't be asking the same question so nonchalantly if you, your family, or the human species was being driven to death and extinction. And I suspect that you would make a case to a judge as to why someone who killed your family, or large groups of humans -- or threatened to kill you -- acted immorally and deserves to be put in jail. I think minimizing the use of the verb "to be" helps have a more sane discussion. You may want to look at a type of English called E-prime to see what I'm talking about.

Shirgall, you say that "This is not a destruction of the biosphere, it is merely a modification of it". ------------------------------------------------------------- Well, when the background rate of extinction is increased thousands of times, as we have done in what is termed the "Holocene extinction", the word "ecocide"and "destruction" of the biosphere seems appropriate. >>>> EndTheUsurpation, You talk about the Quaternary to try to show that maybe it wasn't humans that killed the megafauna, but that is before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity. ----------- DaviesMa, You say that "Killing animals is always to our benefit, whether it is to make way for farm land or habitation or for food. The indirect causes such as pollution are also to our benefit. Just because we don't consume them doesn't make it a seperate moral category." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think many people would disagree that killing animals for food belongs to the same moral category as killing them for sport or as a result of the various ideological goals and massive greed we see in civilization. Especially when this results in huge numbers of species going extinct. Many other creatures have been "top of the food chain" without erasing their compatibility with the environment and causing extinction events. Certainly, the current alarming rate of extinctions is not projected to benefit humanity. >>>>> ProfessionalTeabagger, You say: "it's still not true that causing any other species to go extinct is immoral...What exactly is the problem with this supposed extinction? If you could show more suffering is caused to individual animals as a result of this extinction then you might have an argument. But isn't there less suffering as members of these extinct species will no longer be born into horror?" ----------------------------------------- Many species do experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, that make life worth living. And many do suffer as they are driven to extinction. Certainly you wouldn't be asking the same question so nonchalantly if you, your family, or the human species was being driven to death and extinction. And I suspect that you would make a case to a judge as to why someone who killed your family, or large groups of humans -- or threatened to kill you -- acted immorally and deserves to be put in jail. You also say: "Saying something "seems" immoral is not a good way to argue that it is immoral." ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think minimizing the use of the verb "to be" helps have a more sane discussion. You may want to look at a type of English called E-prime to see what I'm talking about.

repeated post

Apparently some renown experts don't find evidence supporting Savory's claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory But even assuming that Savory was 100% correct, it would be a far cry from "compatibility with the biosphere" Remember that humans started causing the Holocene extinction in the Neolithic with fewer than 10 million people on the planet and no industrial infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction So any successful reforms in an industrialized planet with billions of people (currently 7.3 billion & growing) would at best only slightly slow a massive rate of extinction. A more serious attempt at compatibility with the biosphere would entail humans reverting back to Paleolithic population/production levels i.e. pre Holocene extinction, when only about 5 million humans roamed the planet hunting and gathering -- not even practicing agriculture & domestication. Unfortunately, VHEMT would be justified even if that option were possible, as the unacceptably horrifying possibility of returning to our current ecocidal situation would always be there -- just like it was in the past, when our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers.

DaviesMa, if you read the thread, you'll see that I said: "We've gone too high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering to preserve our moral right to breed." That would include the "individual animal deaths" you're referring to. Without even delving into all the arguments about the value of biodiversity, the relevance of also mentioning "species" has partly to do with the fact that by the criteria I mentioned (ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc) "individual animal deaths" don't all have the same value. The killing a Blue Whale, for example, entails more loss than the killing of an ant. You say that "humans kill more individual animals than any other species... because we are top of the food chain," just like "a lion who kills many gazelles in his lifetime or any other predator". But this is not true. Lions eat the gazelles they kill. We do not eat the 100s of 1000s of species we're bringing to extinction. Lions and other predators are compatible with the biosphere. We're not.

Jack, you say that "Since other species are incapable of extending morality to others, they do not warrant having morality extended to them." But you forget the other, more important, side of the equation: Since other species are equally incapable of extending immorality to others, the also do not warrant having immorality extended to them. And being the single most destructive species in the history of the planet -- bringing to extinction 100s of 1000s of species like we've done seems very immoral. In fact, it makes the crimes of Hitler or Stalin (who killed a small % of only 1 species) seem almost invisible in comparison. Now, I proposed using measures such as ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc to roughly determine the worth of a species. Under these measures, the species we have brought to extinction--let alone the ones we continue to destroy or are futurely projected to destroy -- have already cumulatively exceeded the value of humanity. However, you bring a different measure to the table. You mention 1) the human production of economic value 2) human art 3) human technology ("spaceships" "AI") First lets establish that these things either have no value for other species, or they have an overall negative value (resulting in what is termed as the "Holocene extinction"). So we are left with the question of why it is that the value that only humans accrue through these activities is more significant than the negative value accrued by the species we bring to extinction. I think you'll agree with me that it is because we have a great regard for our intelligence and its products -- the source of all of these things. So for example, even if we ignored the fact that what we find aesthetically pleasing is not shared by many other species (especially narcissistically admiring ourselves over and over again in paintings, sculptures, human sounds & movements etc), it's clear that nature and many of its species create objects, shapes, colors etc that we ourselves find to be of greater aesthetic value than any human art. And yet everytime we admire human art we do so at the same time as we shun (or gradually destroy) this greater aesthetic value of nature. In other words, we choose to admire something of inferior aesthetic value mainly because it has been produced by human intelligence. Similarly, other species and natural earthly processes produce more food, resources etc than any human economy has ever created, and yet we choose to grant ourselves more significance because our intelligence produced these things. Our technology cannot even come close to replicating many of the abilities, senses and products of many creatures and insects, and yet we don't find these to be as significant because they weren't created by human intelligence. Similarly, human culture features a multitude of games, arbitrary activities and goals that provide the individual with feelings of personal significance simply because human intelligence and social consensus by similarly minded creatures are involved. For example, someone could invent some meaningless game, like counting blades of grass. You could have competitions where individuals compete to count faster, using ingenious geometric counting procedures and strategies, group cooperation schemes etc. And the winners could get medals, prizes, recognition and a feeling of accomplishment and self importance. They could devote most of their lives to the game. In a society where the game was popular no one would ever even contemplate the possibility that spending one's life counting blades of grass is no more significant than a cow spending its life eating grass. Similarly, we often value individuals more if they excel at similar games (football, basketball, golf, chess etc), or at the activities you mention (contributions to art, technology, economic production etc). In fact, humans tend to grant importance and meaning to their day to day actions (more than they do to the actions of other creatures) no matter how trivial and objectively meaningless and mediocre these actions may be. Here's where Terror Management comes in. As I said, when homo sapiens got a bigger brain and gained greater self-awareness 200,000 years ago, we developed, as an unfortunate byproduct, a crippling anxiety about our own animal insignificance and finitude. To counter this, humans invented culture, as a way of gaining the illusion of being "individuals of value in a world of meaning" and gaining "symbolic immortality" by being part of something that lives on beyond one's death. This provides us with self-esteem or what Ernest Becker called "heroism", which we generally acquire by living up to the arbitrary standards/prescriptions of the culture we happen to find ourselves in. Our self-esteem therefore has no real factual justification or empirical basis. Our intelligence is thus irrationally given a disproportionate amount of value precisely because of this fear. In other words, the value of intelligence and human social consensus is mainly their ability to suppress your fear of finitude and insignificance through illusions that grant you self-esteem. As I said, this fear-based judgement should be substituted by a more rational assessment of the value of a species, which seems to involve taking into consideration things like the ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc p.s. Proffessionalteabagger, this response also addresses the issues you raised.

t

It's not about you or I think, but about the evidence. TMT has many studies to back it up. If we create culture - engage in its activities and worldviews-- mainly to gain self-esteem (earthly or even cosmic significance, symbolic immortality etc), then it would mean that most of our beliefs are false and most of our activities meaningless. As I said, this is not necessarily the case everytime, but it is most of the time. Examine human history for lies and self-deception. I don't think you believe what you're saying. Do you see value in someone not killing you? Is the value of not blowing your head off just a subjective notion? Do you see value in someone not killing others? Why do we put killers in jail? We do assume human life has value.. And from there, it makes sense to assume that other life forms have value as well. Animals do often suffer as they are driven to extinction. And we also don't think that murder is ok if the person doesn't suffer. For example, if someone gets shot in the back of the head when they are not looking, they may not feel any suffering before they die. That doesn't mean that the action isn't morally reprehensible. Certainly, if someone kills you, or your family, you don't think it should be nonchalantly accepted as an acceptable rate of killing. Otherwise you wouldn't want the killer to go to jail. But you would want him in jail. Wouldn't you? And what if the killer killed not only them, but thousands more? Would it be morally permissible to kill him? Or is the value of the people he is killing just some "subjective" notion? Humanity and its ecological destruction comes from individuals. You can measure the footprint of each new life on the planet. Acquaint yourself with the data. What is morally wrong is to ignore the breeder's individual responsibility for this destruction. Species experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, which we deprive them of by driving them to extinction.

Actually, TMT says that most of our worldviews and activities in culture play a Terror Management function. Culture ITSELF is deemed to have been created to manage our fear of insignificance/finitude. So if VHEMT also plays that function it would not be anything unusual. However, a worldview does not necessarily became empirically false just because it plays that function. It just means that self-esteem is a strong motivator e.g. I can make a scientific or factual discovery which is evidence-based, or help an old lady cross the street and also feel proud about it (incorporate it into my self-esteem). I do not presume to know what the precise value of a species is, but we do know that things like brain size, the ability to have sensations, the compatibility with the biosphere etc can be taken into account. Certainly, you value someone not killing you. And most people believe we should put killers in jail. Which means that we assume that Homo sapiens life has a certain value. The jump to assuming that other species also have some value seems logical. And if Homo Sapiens is the most destructive single species in the history of the planet (which it is), one can argue that 1) It already has destroyed more species than it itself is worth 2) The destruction of even more species is ongoing and the prospects are even more destructive. 3) We've gone too high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering to preserve our moral right to breed.

Les Knight has lead by example: He got a vasectomy. Of course, many people notice the strength of the case and so they reflexively say "kill yourself!" as a way of not dealing with its arguments. It is too much to ask from anybody to kill themselves. But it is not too much to ask them to stop breeding. How many other species is the human species worth? or more generally, how high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering should humans go before they lose the moral right to breed?

2 important topics: VHEMT & TMT are apparently missing from Freedomain radio's podcast series. Perhaps interviewing Les Knight, would be the best way to learn about VHEMT, since he's the founder. I've been part of the FB group for a year now, and I find his case for VHEMT morally and intellectually unassailable. I got acquainted with VHEMT after reading and being struck by the following statement by Knight on a friend's FB post: "If we use a balance scale like Blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other—giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales—the scales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage." Here's a video of him appearing on Fox As far as TMT goes, Jeff Greenberg or Sheldon Solomon are probably the guys to interview. TMT has gathered quite a bit of evidence in the last 25 years. In evolutionary terms, it basically says that when homo sapiens got a bigger brain and gained greater self-awareness 200,000 years ago, we developed, as an unfortunate byproduct, a crippling anxiety about our own animal insignificance and finitude. To counter this, humans invented culture, as a way of gaining the illusion of being "individuals of value in a world of meaning" and gaining "symbolic immortality" by being part of something that lives on beyond one's death. This provides us with self-esteem or what Ernest Becker (from whom the theory derives) called "heroism", which we generally acquire by living up to the arbitrary standards/prescriptions of the culture we happen to find ourselves in. Our self-esteem therefore has no real factual justification or empirical basis. TMT studies provide evidence that our struggle to deny the finality of death co-opted and changed more primitive functions like morality. http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Terror_Management_Theory_%28TMT%29 It also provides explanations for our faith in notions like progress https://www.academia.edu/925758/Things_will_get_better_The_anxiety-buffering_qualities_of_progressive_hope/ or even as a crucial factor in our desire to procreate http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicolas_Koranyi/publication/265092855_Mortality_Salience_and_the_Desire_for_Offspring/links/0deec532fefd24b0e8000000.pdf