Re: Why the future doesn't matter (much)

Just to correct a mistaken impression, I am not "invested" in human extinction, and allowed in my OP that humans might continue to exist in post-historical time. I have absolutely no idea whatever whether humans will become extinct or not. I very much hope not, but I regard it as a possibility to be considered when we deal with the very far future, given that humans seem unable to place limits on the development of technologies whose ultimate consequences are unforeseeable. I certainly try to be cognisant of "fallacies", but saying that my argument is "bourgeois" doesn't constitute the identification of a logical fallacy, so far as I can see. Were Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock "bourgeois" for raising these issues? And what would it matter if they were? This isn't Lenin's Russia. I still don't understand what your point is. I think you totally underestimate what truly advanced intelligence can do. Humans don't have an ecological "niche" in the same way as an eel or a marmoset. We have massively transformed our planetary environment in a way that no other species has done hitherto. I don't understand why you think a cognitively more advanced species couldn't or wouldn't do the same.