Here it is. No hedging on the conditions; they exist to define the question.

Scenario. A cosmic disaster threatens Earth. For one reason or another, only two courses of action are possible, and they are mutually exclusive: taking one precludes taking the other.

In one course of action, humanity would be saved for 1000 years, after which ALL of Earthly life would certainly perish, without exception.

In the other course of action, humanity would perish at once, but there is a possibility of saving the remainder of Earthly life, which, over time, might evolve into new forms of high consciousness.

Which action does morality call us to choose?

Jerry Abbott

I don't know anything about Cosmotheism and my only religious experience has been with Christianity. Out of curiosity, I will answer this question. My first reaction is to answer in favor of the second option. Why? I think the second choice has just as much uncertainty as the first but given what I see around me; the idea of betting all life on Earth - theoretically the only life in the Milky Way and, as far as we know, the Universe - on the chance that the wiggers will get their act together in the allowed 1000 years is a bit too much. I could go with option one if there were more detail on the general situation. I base that on the assumption that Whites, given the right conditions, could pull off some sort of Noah's Ark type operation. Also in favor of option two; there is supposed to be evidence that 95% of all life on Earth was wiped out once before.

That's a highly contived scenario Jenab, obviously. Why do you ask it?

But to answer your question, I would elect for the first answer. The reason is that frankly I don't really care what happens to Earth if we humans aren't around. Humanity, especially the Aryan version, is what I value.

Moreover, 1000 years is a long time. In that period of time we humans would have advanced our technology to the point that we could easily escape the impending destruction of Earth, if not stave it off completely.

Anyway, given the resource depletion that has occured during the rise of humanity it would be highly improbable for another intelligent species to follow us. We are Earth's one shot at the Galactic Brass Ring, and White people are the best hope of all humanity. Which is why I dabble in WN.

-Brian

I should have been less ambiguous.

When I said "all Earthly life," I meant all life descended from species evolved on Earth, whether it's actually ON Earth or not when Extinction Time happens.

A peculiar scenario. Without hesitation I would support #2.

I am not a cosmotheist. But I am certain that living things are good in and of themselves, and that 1000 years of one species, even humans, cannot compensate for the loss of all others, for all time.



Here it is. No hedging on the conditions; they exist to define the question.

Scenario. A cosmic disaster threatens Earth. For one reason or another, only two courses of action are possible, and they are mutually exclusive: taking one precludes taking the other.

In one course of action, humanity would be saved for 1000 years, after which ALL of Earthly life would certainly perish, without exception.

In the other course of action, humanity would perish at once, but there is a possibility of saving the remainder of Earthly life, which, over time, might evolve into new forms of high consciousness.

Which action does morality call us to choose?

Jerry Abbott