I think this just illustrates how ridiculous utilitarianism is as a purported self-evident and all-encompassing philosophy. One should also accept a healthy dose of egoism as moral.
I appreciate you taking the idea to its logical conclusion in your thesis to show why this is the case though.
If we consider utilitarianism from a non-anthropocentric viewpoint, then the guiding light for our moral compass becomes biodiversity. If each form of life or variation in species or relations between species leads to infinite possible ways of life continuing despite an extinction event, then anything that can be done to preserve and further increase biodiversity (without increasing the risk of loss of significant chunks of the tree of life just to extend another) would open up more opportunities for survival and thriving and the welfare of life.
If the great filter filters species out by extinction, the best chance we have of getting through it may be to just throw as many species at it as possible...
In that sense, our "mining spaceships" as humans on Earth in the 21st century, should be some form of working earth to generate and preserve as much biodiversity as possible, while also figuring out ways to fling life into the furthest reaches of space.
Edit:
Also, some consideration should go towards how the delineation of species is somewhat blurry given the fact that any given individual creature that is not a single celled organism is likely host to a full microbiome of many other living beings upon which they depend, and lives in an ecosystem of other lifeforms that all create the conditions for each other's survival and thriving. To make it through the great filter means taking some amount of those species through the filter together. And the more you attempt to bring through that filter, statistically speaking, the more will survive.
I think this just illustrates how ridiculous utilitarianism is as a purported self-evident and all-encompassing philosophy. One should also accept a healthy dose of egoism as moral.
I appreciate you taking the idea to its logical conclusion in your thesis to show why this is the case though.
Have you read Stirner?
If we consider utilitarianism from a non-anthropocentric viewpoint, then the guiding light for our moral compass becomes biodiversity. If each form of life or variation in species or relations between species leads to infinite possible ways of life continuing despite an extinction event, then anything that can be done to preserve and further increase biodiversity (without increasing the risk of loss of significant chunks of the tree of life just to extend another) would open up more opportunities for survival and thriving and the welfare of life.
If the great filter filters species out by extinction, the best chance we have of getting through it may be to just throw as many species at it as possible...
In that sense, our "mining spaceships" as humans on Earth in the 21st century, should be some form of working earth to generate and preserve as much biodiversity as possible, while also figuring out ways to fling life into the furthest reaches of space.
Edit:
Also, some consideration should go towards how the delineation of species is somewhat blurry given the fact that any given individual creature that is not a single celled organism is likely host to a full microbiome of many other living beings upon which they depend, and lives in an ecosystem of other lifeforms that all create the conditions for each other's survival and thriving. To make it through the great filter means taking some amount of those species through the filter together. And the more you attempt to bring through that filter, statistically speaking, the more will survive.