The end of humanity: Nick Bostrom at TEDxOxford
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2013
- Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom began thinking of a future full of human enhancement, nanotechnology and cloning long before they became mainstream concerns. Bostrom approaches both the inevitable and the speculative using the tools of philosophy, bioethics and probability.
Nick is Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University and founding Director of the Future of Humanity Institute and of the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology within the Oxford Martin School. He's also the co-founder and chair of both the World Transhumanist Association, which advocates the use of technology to extend human capabilities and lifespans, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
TEDxOxford is organised by University of Oxford students, aiming to bring together the young minds of tomorrow's world with the movers and shakers of today. TEDxOxford is kindly sponsored by Neptune Investment Management - www.neptunefunds.com
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
The title of this video insinuates the end of humanity IS Nick Bostrom. I'm watching you, Nick.
The man looks already half dead !!!
Nick Bostrom on massive under-allocation of time, resource and effort to the issue of the highest impact for the civilization. Definitely a worthwhile case.
What a ray of sunshine this guy is:)
I'd love for my institution to host a TEDx conference but we don't have that many red bottles.
I watch videos like this all the time, I think about things like this constantly. The future, humanity, technology... This is the first video that truly stopped me in my tracks. Some might see the ideas this man is presenting as negative, I find pure optimism.
evolvingandroid indeed, the potential of 10^40+ human lives living in bliss is undescribeably positive in the amount of value existed. i implore everyone i can to maximize the probabillity of achieving that, and think of all donations in that manner.
I think about this all the time as well. I am looking for people to talk to and record the conversations on Hangout to get more people involved into the discussion. Are you interested?
Antichrist
Informative talk. Thank you, bless you. All your dreams come true.
I can see why this man lost all his hair
I've lot mine too. Guess I shouldn't worry about it either.
marry me
I did it for the cat girls you still like to marry me? even if I like Donald Trump
trump is america's only hope
It's discussed @ 3:49 , for those who didn't catch it
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Some very important points made in second half of video.
Nick bostrom is my idol
hi...mine too.. I am doing my dissertation on him
Makes me sad. The only 2 answers is 1. Complete control of AIs. 2. A new world war (1.does not exclude the other). 3. STOP beeing assholes to each other (tho that one is hilariously impossible)
whut it sad is anyone with any level of knowledge can easily realise all goals are not possible.
There are also many other answers: 4. global (probably artificial) pandemic extinction 5. make a/some (super-intelligent) AI that has/have the best human values, which then "steers" reality clear of all other existential risks even though humans in general stay selfish 6. (relatively unlikely) get destroyed by a asteroid/supernova 7. extinction via nanotechnology some how (such as "grey goo") 8. catch-all category for things like the matrix overlords of our simulation (universe) pulling the plug or the local region of quantum flux that our universe inhabits within the multiverse becomes unstable and collapses, etc.
I do agree though on unaided (by smarter than human AI) humanity achieving 3. seeming highly unlikely, even though you worded it to make it sound more implausible than it really is. Not sure on how hard achieving 5. is, but since it seems the most likely non-existential risk region of the future, that's where I'd say at least much of the focus of preventing existential risk should go. Any other existential risk like avoiding nuclear war or global pandemic should be engaged in roughly so far as doing so would increase our probability of achieving 5. more than investing directly in "friendly AI" would.
Reminds me of a meme I saw (again) recently:
We could explore the galaxy if we could stop being dicks for like, five minutes.
There always has to be a Dr Strangelove in the crowd
1 in 5 chance of going extinct in 100 years. Humanity is playing a really bad game of Russian Roulette.
That's just a guess of some scientists. Perhaps they base their judgement on the book by Martin Rees "Our Final Century".
Peter McLoughlin 20% sounds quite golden if you have any insight into how difficult the ai problem is and how little virtually anyone seems to care. and thats one, although the biggest, out of many potential threats. though if we make it for 100 years we should have a great chance at millions, or billions for that matter
wasdwasdedsf I have been thinking along the same lines. I think we are in a tough bottleneck that likely opens to a magnificent vista if we can make it.
Peter McLoughlin that is indeed the situation. i recommend this highly as the most positive and motivating thing ive read that made me change my life to maximize the probabillity
nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
I ran across Bostrom first in 2007 or 08 and have checked in with him from time to time since. He is getting more well known these days probably because the topics he talks about get ever more tangible.
Im watching this a few minutes before midnight, and I keep falling asleep and waking up.
Great. See you soon.
funnily enough, one way to optimize humankind's survival/ transition into a "safe" sustainable condition would probably be helping those in need and educating everybody sufficiently so that there would be less incentive for abusing powerful technologies upon discovery. So digging wells and building schools in africa might be the right thing to do, actually.
Plenty of people have become terrorists because of the "degeneracy" brought by progress, so I really don't think it will work.
Life never ends.
Well, something may be missing. If helping lives today (by being a nurse, or digging wells in Africa, or working for a great cause) is compared with potentially preventing 1 million future deaths, is the latter clearly better? For it to be better, those lives would have to be "good" in order for their saving to be a good thing. Whereas improving quality of life and reducing pain (by doing good things today) directly makes lives better...And makes future lives better.
Besides that, there is a lot of suffering in human life (including angst, fear, crime, loss, worrying about existential risks :P, etc). And a lot of pleasure (satisfaction, joy, exhilaration, etc). By preventing deaths, one is _also_ increasing the suffering that will occur, along with the pleasure. Is that right? The answer is far from clear to me.
That's an aspect I do not ever hear about...Of course, we do come from a long, unbroken line of survivors; this may help to explain our unquestioned assumption that life and our species should not end, at all costs.
"began thinking of a future full of human enhancement, nanotechnology and cloning long before they became mainstream concerns." Alvin Toffler sends his regards.
Future Shock
Bluh. Between B and C, I would prefer C. If, like in B scenario, some millions people survived after nuclear war, they would live in awful circumstances, and would suffer really badly. I would never prefer that
Chernobyl has turned out to be a miracle of nature, lots of wild-life despite the radioactivity of the area.
Understandable, but I think this may be because you're not properly seeing the big picture or not properly feeling it. In the same way that the suffering of people in distant countries affect us less emotionally than the ones right in front of us the prospect of conscious beings on billions of billions of planets living good, meaningful lives for billions upon billions of years might not seem as important in our heads as it should.
Tor Barstad i would argue, that a future in which not all humans suffer are worth years of suffering on those living through them, so as not to loose the potential humans have
The most challenging and more real future possibility is to unfold the full human potential. But this task is an interior task. It is NOT an exterior one thrown into the hands of AI.
The choice humanity faces is precisely that: choice. Earlier it was about what we can do; to what extent we can dominate nature and use it for our endless vanity, to what extent we can stretch our own selves. We have come to the point where the question now is what we ought to do. That question cannot be answered without first asking who we are, why we are here, and where we c are going. As wise man very wisely pointed out without the ultimate truth, all the rest is pointless and endless self gratification of ego.
It’s like giving us all the possibilities of what may happen but no answers.
Somebody please stop these sociopaths!!!!
Even though the risk is low, but here's a distinct risk that there's someone dying from boredom listening to this argument here
ha not caring about the future of humanity is so funny lol!!!
The more intricate and numerous matter is being dispersed into different shapes, the more variables. 'Pollution' is one major 'variable' as a byproduct of our comfort. Our definition of 'comfort' doesn't equal the comfort of the majority of animals surrounding us, and this is an understatement. Making a cycle out of the matter providing our comfort is the first challenge. Take transport. Avoiding the need for transport could be much more elaborated as today's the case. 'Energy' or the transfer of matter into movement , heat, transformed matter,... is another challenge. First rule : if you don't need to, don't do it. Stop making commercials, have everyone who can work at home working at home, don't push people in their cars when they go shopping, etc... . That's the first wave of adaptations we already CAN do. The next will need some more logistic interfering.
The sub-text seems to be; never mind the beauty and diversity of the ecology of earth of which we are a part; let’s burn it all up as quickly as we can and get a few people to Mars.
what's up with the random red bottles in the background?
i love nick, but reminds me a car insurance guy. hes so worried about keeping the car safe, but doesnt talk much about the driver. our consciousness is the only real thing here. and if you want to improve our ability to 'drive' the cars we're all in (existentialism) theres only one way. lower the entrophy. get more connected to each other. share. love. the 50 trillion sentient cells in our body do it everyday. certainly the 8 billion organisms on this earth's 'mem brain' can do it.
Ok, at the point where he talking about A, Band C - my take is that C, leading to the death of ALL people has a value similar to infinite. Putting it completely outside any other scale which measures the death of some people. Let's see what he says.
If what he said about reducing the possibility of existential risk is true, this talk technically makes him the most important, powerful, and influential man who ever lived.
X bottles of orange on the wall. If one of those bottles happens to fall, X bottles of orange on the wall leaves X# days for humanity to fall....
SORRY BUT...
People care way too much about the present to reduce existential risks. For example, saving 1 life today will get you much more recognition than saving 1 million "potential" lives in the next years.
Since we can't know the future (yet), saving 1 life today may very well save 1 million potential lives in the future. What if no one saved the guy who saved the guy who saved those 1 million lives? Every life counts now and in the long run.
"What if"s don't convince people. Facts convince people! If we saved a million potential lives, proving it would be close to impossible. ...
SORRY BUT.....
This is an extremely selfish way of looking at things. Humanity has gone mad! We are too concerned with the present to protect our future generations? Without a future, what is the point of anything?
PongoXBongo I like what you're saying, but how can we ever know the future? We will always know the present and the past. Even now, 20 seconds after I started typing this, I am still not in the future. Not even yet. What about now? Nope. Only the present exists. The past has existed, but the only reality is the present. By knowing the future, we could change it. This is a paradox, that could never be allowed to happen!
We can extrapolate current patterns out into the future. More than likely, not necessarily, what was true yesterday and is true today will still be true tomorrow. Looking for trends in behavior. Rather like a well being stock market (not literally).
this guy is even more interesting if you switch off the sound
Keep my old encouragement for Dr. Bostrom to read The Absolute at Large by Karel Capek. Then he might reconsider the paper clips example- it is indeed, easier to understand by the majority, but not as subtle and beleivable as the Capek's absolute.
So many advances in technology and neurosciences and we still don't have a cure for tinnitus... Deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, auditory-somatosensory bimodal stimulation... all in research, but none being implemented yet...
STOP united states military budget immediately.
+radavar Or increase it? Maybe a gloabal hegemony by US force is safer for humanity in the long run? That's the point of thinking about existential risks, short term solutions might be long term risks and vice versa.
US will take care of you.
Njald Bravo, you just described Fascism.
radavar
Please describe which parts of his comment fall within a definition of fascism. I want to hear this.
Titus Veridius
fascism
dictatorial system of government characterized by extreme nationalism and right-wing authoritarian views.
Of course it makes perfect sense for the members within the system. So if you are an American, you most probably like the idea and feel privileged to be part of the leading party and it makes you blind to the truth.
I wonder how many people are baking sand in their microwave ovens right now.
LMFAO!!! Sadly, probably quite a few... im sure some religious people have interpreted scripture to say as much...LOL!
I tried it once and it exploded and took away my right arm.
Never again.
+OriginalMindTrick : Had it taken away your wrong arm, you could have made a fortune with that discovery!
What style of insight will best enable us to manage global industrial balance?
He is speaking of "existence" as if it's value is limited to human form. We humans, like every other life form,are in a state of interdependence, and co-evolution. So called 'human lives" are not a separate commodity. We can cease to be human, without ceasing to be.
event horizon is coming, I'm just chilling till then, stuck in a system that doesnt allow me to change it.. change the way people think, change the system.
8 years later and there’s a new dent in that first graph.
And what might that be?
@@hakunamattatta5170 covid deaths have u been livin under a rock dude?
No i live in reality. In 2020 less ppl died than in 2018. Now The ADE caused by "experimental" Gene therapy, which they know damn well what are the side effects, and they Are kicking in; death rate climbing.
I wonder why some people get gaslit so easy. Indoctrination maybe, or fear? Cult tactics anyway.
But i digress. God bless.
@@hakunamattatta5170 lol ur a funny guy but you forgot the “/s”
@@maybee6105 i know it sounds crazy and really hard to comprehend how insane acts some people Are willing to do. Even The thought of such, lets now say "hypothetical scenario" .
The psychology is pretty solid on this matter. I.e cognitive dissonance, one of The biggest angles of this psywar, but Make no mistake.
They Have thought and mastered programming people and making Them Stockholm syndrome over their whole fundamental being and understanding of reality..
Reality is really often More weird thab fiction... Its messed up.
Good vibes to you, sir.
PS: completely of The Topic, but know, that Christ IS on all of us, its not found in a church.. love your family. We need to evolve.
Current situation with corruption in society is Almost biblical.. ;)
Stay safe...
The probability is that it is a bunch of mind bogling existential Gobaldygook!
I grew up with imminent doom. I would worry about certain interests creating escape scenarios such as vast underground towns for "the elite."
Musk has a plan for you
5:25 - 7:10 honestly feels to me like a reductio ad absurdum against strict utilitarianism. I think you'd do much more good by giving a single homeless person a cup of coffee than by somehow increasing the odds that humanity spreads across the cosmos by 0.1%.
Its too late! Whatever standards are set, there will always be someone who is ready to break rules. Someone is going to create an AI to win some war or to destroy some group of people and going to end up destroying all human beings. It will happen at some point in time.
He looks - and talks - like a grown up version of the Lex Luthor of Batman vs Superman.
Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.
Yes. Got tired of the hairsplitting. Given- we may or may not be talking about actual extinction. I think he has a blind spot. Economists have a concept called “externalities “. I think of it as a way economists lie. You have to account for all costs, without exception. Especially on a finite planet. From extraction to disposal. Energy return on energy invested constantly degrades. 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a suggestion. EROI is our timer. Increasing complexity is not robust, not resilient. So much of industrial civilization will simply not be “worth” doing, except making sure those with the means get the resources they need. Oh, I know, let’s have a war, and so on.
what can i do to reduce existential risk? i'm already trying to work on food security...
There can't be the end of something that has no existence in the first place.
You can only have a "best" or "worst" in relation to some goal. Personally I'm of the mind that B would be worse in relation to human suffering, joy, art, music, ect... than C.
Is there such a thing as "technological maturity"?
Technological Maturity refers to a point where all, to a potential mind, possible technological insights are known. That which can be known and used. - How distant or close that barrier is is a guess in the dark. A fools prediction. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bottom-less well. - There is probably a limit to what something inside a universe can do with it.
Wow, 8,7 million suscribers. Good to see some of us try to use their brains haha :)
Not that simple. No human suffering, but also no human joy, love, humor, art, music, etc. C is the worst. All the efforts of thousands upon thousands of years of Humans is permanently destroyed.
As JM Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead." Its very hard to justify risking actual human lives now in order to maximize possible human lives in the future.
? Maybe you could explain this to me sometime, thanks
in what way is it ever hard to justify
***** what exactly are you saying. 10 human lifeyears today has different value compared to a hypothetical identical 10 human lifeyears lived 200 years ago?
***** so you care nothing for the potential generations, as long as your life was happy and those you personally knew
I luv that he stands around pretending to be clueless all the time. I can think of 5 obvious things to reduce risk off the top of my head but he never mentions any.
Such as?
i like his swedish german accent
That conference feels like a RL clickbait
If hell exists, its irrelevant "who's hell" it is. If exists, whoever deserves to go there will end up there.
"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will end." - Vernor Vinge, Dept of Math Sciences, San Diego State University, 1993
2023? Nah...
we have to vote for survivalist politicians not profiteers.
The profit mode must be reoriented or reformed to reflect reality. CEO greed has imposed a death sentence on our planet. Earth is not a for profit experiment and survival of humanity will not be made possible, by profiteers.
Who is going to suffer for the loss of all (human joy, love etc) that if there's not a single human to survive and experience all that?
Chuck norris. Or you cat man. You got nine lives.
cool
Why are there red bottles
Bostrom first demonstrates quantitative risk arithmetic by comparing the number of lifetimes in alternative outcomes.
He then switches to a very fuzzy argument about qualitative "trajectories."
Both of these approaches enable "The ends justifies the means." as a rationale for atrocities.
I believe that Bostrom does not favor such a rationale or the "trajectory" such a rationale implies.
Basically, for any proposal - We all want to see the plan.
As I said, no human suffering, but also a complete waste of an attempt by the universe to establish order and complexity. You could say "Well, whatever." but I can't be that cold and dispassionate about my own species, and I feel sympathy for anyone that can.
Filosofers time is over long time ago, circumstances and roles have changed so every free thinking person is his own filosofer now
And another aspect he did not consider is the depreciation rate (or what we call interest rate when dealing with money).
Assuming there is some kind of depreciation effect when dealing with lives, then a life 10,000 years from now is worth very little in the present.
Even if you use a very low depreciation value of 0.1%, you come up with almost zero value of a life 10,000 years from now (not to mention 10 million years from now...)
Does the reason why we apply depreciation work here?
Financially I see two reasons for depreciation:
1) financial: since things like bonds exist, money in the future can be bought with less money now, and is therefore worth no more than that lower amount
2) personal: you stand a certain probability of dying or becoming disabled, so that money in the future has a risk of you not being able to use it.
Neither seems relevant.
this guy's hard-core .. probably in a biker-gang of some kind
100+ species going extinct daily due to habitat loss from animal agriculture. Avoiding meat and dairy is "the single biggest way" to reduce our environmental impact on Earth. -Researchers at Oxford University
Unfortunately the doctor underestimates humanity's risk of extinction maybe to avoid being labelled to negative. But currently our rate of extinction is 100% or at least 99.999% if we are incorrect in predicting that our sun will die. In fact long before our sun dies the planet will not be able to support human life. So really the risks are far greater then he depicts. But it's very good that he talks about risks vs reward and about more cooperation when it come to space. Our current system of exploration in space takes very low risks and therefore takes way longer then it should to progress. It places to much value in a single life or the life of a very few. And this public opinion needs to change. The number of astronauts that have died compared to say the number of sailors that died trying to find a new way to India and instead finding and colonizing America is almost 0%
+Futchmacht Interesting point. Public opinion nowadays is very resistant to being less moral though. Before that would happen, I predict that robots/computers will advance to the point that there wont be a need to put human lives in danger for space exploration.
mattxXx13 while I agree that robots are a good way to test unproven methods of space travel or new untested technology.. The end game would still wipe us out. The sun will die and if at that time all we can do is send robots into space all humanity is dust anyway. Now I do realize that we still have a long time before that happens to advance.. But the sun's death our our planet being obliterated is not the only thing that has the potential to take us out but it's the one thing so far that is going to happen 100% given enough time. But threats from smaller things like impacts happen all the time and they could if bad enough wipe us out. The time frame between this impacts seem long and far between because we live for 100 years give or take. But these impacts happen normally over 10's or 100's of thousands of years which sounds like a lot of time compared the the estimated billions that it will take for the sun to die. But why wait so long to work on the problem when we know the outcome. Humans once we learn something can't unlearn it. But we are really good at saying ah well it's a long time from now someone else can work on it. But for all we know the one that wipes us out could be 300 years from now or 100. We already know that when we watch the sky's for movement we are only able to detect a very small % of space at a time to fine and track possible impacts.. And that's why we have many that hit and we don't know it till its either happening or already happened. This is why we need to pick up the pace a little.. Or a lot.
If nuclear war destroys 100% of human life, the world will finally be at peace. Thank you for coming to My ted talk.
not sure why he considers human survival a positive result.
Make a discovery?
Done, MAN!!!
TED lectures feel as if I'm watching an infomercial. I'm always waiting for the final sales pitch. :(
Melo Earth So true.
Melo Earth I watched Kevin Surface - Ted Talk and felt like he was selling me a robot to automate my life.
Order your lifetime supply of existential dread NOW!
the cynicism on display here is astounding.
Everyone is entitled to their perception. Influence, by definition is the ability to bring or suede others to yours...you see sales amd I see sociology. If he were talking about something of great priority to you...you would not have made this comment. Everyone has a 'corner' and just because you dont care for his doesnt mean its any more or less valid than anyone else's. Sales is all over the place. Any time you need to convince anyone to do anything. Why make that seem like a bad thing? People sell each other their beliefs every day, by the clothes we wear amd the way we talk. With our UA-cam profile pictures and popular comments. Personally I find this comment of low intellectual capacity and even less value.
C is the best choice. If no one is alive, how would we know we screwed up. Thus there would be no way to measure the damage caused.
Eder G and matter are impossible to destroy. It is literally impossible for us to use all the resources .
If that's where the party is, let's go, go, GO!
Assuming the earth will be habitable for another billion years, it seems the odds that we were born in the first 6,000 years of recorded history are pretty small. Unless there is something about civilizations that tend to limit civilizational life span, or at least limits the span of historical time that human births will be common. This worrries me.
100%-99% = The One Percent. I am starting to think they are preparing to inherit the earth.
I think it is not good to measure the value of life. But if we go purely logical here - What about 10K years ago and the life today which worth more? Then what about a million .. or 200 billion years ago when we were nothing more than a lizards? Would you say the life of a human being worth equal to that and if you go further to the one cell organisms or even further to the sand and dust would you say that one life today has equal value to one grain of sand?
5:17
11:32
That was ten years ago. So, have we started yet? No. :(
Sooo.. Forgive me of my ignorance😔 But what or who *exactly* is a "TED's Talk" .?😌
I think it means
Tech and Education TED
But I’m just guessing
One way ticket please.
You don't know that. There may be life elsewhere that finds out world after C. Instead of actually meeting us, they see that we destroyed ourselves. Also even if we are it, it doesn't erase the fact that it DID happen, that those achievements were made and were lost entirely when there should have been another way to continue Humanity.
I don't like, but also like the idea of studying human extinction. The part that I don't like is thinking that it's this group of people that may one day be in charge of deciding what's best for the human race. Then at some point, I feel, you would have to start censoring certain types of people and their ideas.
With SuperAI and nanotech as it is, the likehood of accidentally creating the "green goo" is a potential existential risk of our technology. I don't think military tech is an ELE potential as yet.
Howdy
Mr. Bostrom has a beautiful mind.. (envy)
Wouldn't the end of all human life mean that there is no one to recognize the efforts of those thousands of years? They would be meaningless. There may be no joy, love, humor, etc... but that wouldn't matter because there would be no one to appreciate those things. Just a thought.
One could also measure progress in human misery. By objectifying human misery one can look at the growth of human misery due to population growth and eventually pathological population density. In such a perspective extistential risk would be preferable.
Unless you integrate policies that constrain misery from the get go. And in turn I could argue that either we integrate these policies or existential euthanasia would become preferable. Now where did I leave my cobalt fluoride?
It does not agree with everyone
the underlying view of Bostrom that it would be desirable to do much and everything to maximize the possibilities of disaster mitigation.
What if the human species is a misguided branch of evolution?
Nick; Discover and understand the difference between the human body (an Avatar) and LIFE The Real Self.
Don't rely on the Simulation but discover your real self, i.e LIFE, then discover "The Processing System of LIFE" and learn about its structure, workings, language and software. It is very, very easy to see 'The Processing System Construct' in your sight, achievable through many different methods.
TEDxYouth/discussion
i think we should make a kickstarter to safe a human race
He should have included Mao in his short list.
What's the point of C? It's finality, an end, no possibility of rebuilding ourselves or learning from our mistakes. At least there is a chance of learning and continuing from B. *if* you are arguing that non-existence of Humanity is preferable, congratulations for arguing for genocide, I'm sure your ancestors would be proud.
Maybe the reason why the topic on human extinction hasnt been touched upon as much is because up until now, no technological advancement has posed serious threat. Sure nuclear weapons, but nuclear weapons fall short of a technology that can be destructive without needing humans(AI). If something is possible then it is probable it will happen. Permanent stagnation is less likely due to the advances being made in AI, unfortunately flawed realization is possible.
Eliminate psychopaths from the human population and you wont have to worry about all the other bullshit. Life and overall health and wellbeing of all humanity as well as a high standard of living.our lives will be just happy happy joy joy.
There is absolutely NOTHING and NO ONE left in C. Ergo, there is nobody to care about human suffering. The need to suffer, and its conjugate need to sympathize with the sufferers is abolished altogether.