Talk:Doomsday argument

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

While you may consider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, but articles do have to meet certain standards.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Effective Altruism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Futures studies Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Human extinction#Scientific accidents|technological threats to humanity's survival]] The anchor (#Scientific accidents) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Anthropic principle#Anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning|considering observation selection effects]] The anchor (#Anthropic bias and anthropic reasoning) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Page is out of date?

This source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/quantifying-human-existence/ says that around 117 billions humans have ever lived and I thought this was common knowledge; the article relies on the wrong premise that only 60 billion humans have been born so far. Use: YlmbWP 8 Oct 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YlmbWP (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elonite rebuttal omitted?

Current article fails to mention the simplest rebuttal constructed thus far: Elon Musk's admitted aim of creating a multi-planetary human species in the foreseeable future. By disseminating Homo Sapiens throughout the Solar System first and then among the stars and galaxies, it becomes ever less likely that any natural or intentional force could exterminate ALL the people. (Unless whoever said Fiat Lux! eventually says Lights out! - but that possibility lies firmly outside the domain of science.) 78.131.76.69 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is already addressed in the article. If something happens that significantly increases the ability of humans to survive hardship (meteor, or whatever), then humans today may expect to be in the first 5%, which is the first rebuttal listed. For example, if one is certain that 99% of humans who will ever live will be cyborgs, but that only a negligible fraction of humans who have been born to date are cyborgs, one could be equally certain that at least one hundred times as many people remain to be born as have been. Replace cyborg with extra-planetary inhabitant. Closhund (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

What is the point of an argument with a ridiculous premise; 'the total number of humans that will exist is fixed'? 49.186.53.128 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think this is ridicuolous? The idea is that between the Big Bang and the heat death of the universe, there will be some finite number n of humans. The point of the argument is that we should believe n is low rather than high, that is, we should believe that the total number of humans that will ever live is low. TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Copernican Principle"

This terminology seems misleading or odd at best. Copernicus's reasons for rejecting a geocentric model of the universe seem completely irrelevant here. Shouldn't it be a principle of indifference? The idea of such a principle is that your credence or subjective probability between two qualitatively identical hypotheses should be equal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]