Ethical dilemma: Culture vs. Longevity dilemma: What makes life worth living? | Jennie

Dilemma. What makes life worth living? On your planet, life depends entirely on Neuronium. Your species is almost otherwise identical to humans, except you require Neuronium and the atmosphere for normal cognition. Now that people lose their captivity to imagination relatively, over time they even lose their ability to even retain long-term memories. While this certainly delicates a situation, this essential element also provides an indefinite source of clean energy, having allowed very rich people to thrive for millennia. Maligning scientists have discovered terrible news. Somehow the entire source of Neuronium has been invertibly compromised. Now it's amid a pollution that lowers fertility in your species. And if your planet continues relying on the source, your people will go extinct within 100 years. However, an incredible stroke of luck. Your scientists have identified a passing comet from which an alternative energy source called Polisate and would provide the same renewable energy as Neuronium, but it won't sustain cognition in a quite sane way. With Polisate, the atmosphere inside of Neuronium would lose their creativity and long-term memories, and eventually your entire culture would disappear. The Polisate comet will only remain in orbit for a few days, and after that, it won't return for centuries. So your society administration council must decide immediately whether to keep using Neuronium or mount an expedition to harvest Polisate. Right now, the board is split waiting for your type-breaking vote. Dr. Taloff's cousin argues that your people must continue using Neuronium. They believe that your species, culture, centuries, literature, music, and art, as well as your achievements, agriculture, and technology, is what makes your life worth living. Without memories of yore, the ability would dream up new inventions that people on the planet would essentially be reduced in mindless drones. Where their basic needs for survival and reproduction would be met. But Dr. Taloff believes that those future generations would be meaningless without their memories, imagination, and culture. It says Dr. Taloff's group doesn't believe that it is an internal right to be brought into existence. If it's not possible for them to end the civilizations they inherited, there's no point of trying to preserve them. Besides, no living beings are harmed by continuing to rely on Neuronium. Your species would go similarly except their fate to go extinct digitally. Dr. Cahan and their colleagues strongly disagree. They admit that switching to Polisate is the quantity of their life with their basic needs, but they could still experience the kind of happiness observed into arguably less complex life forms. And even though there's no chance of your people redeveloping creativity, that's what Dr. Cahan's is that way of preserving life. Dr. Cahan's faction believes the continuation of life alone is inherently livable. So it's a belief that an average of every member of your species contributes in small and constant ways to be better men of your people. So by choosing to ensure your people's existence, it should ultimately be improving the total happiness of your species. But Dr. Taylor rejects the idea that maximizing good is the ultimate goal of living. They believe that a valuable life consists of not only happiness, but also meaningfulness. That acting as links in the chain and preserving cultural artifacts are some of the fundamental sources of species that we have. Merely continuing to exist in the lives of those contented pets would not be valuable. Meanwhile, the advocates for Polisate, there's more something fundamentally unethical of choosing extinction. Dr. Cahan argues that there's no moral difference between what we do, and we would allow what happened to have acted differently. So while it would be tragic for your people to cease access to the chance to knowingly make a decision that results in extinction, the chance amounts to mass murder. Polisate needs much more to say, but the council needs your vote now. So what shall it be? Iranian for a while, or obsolete forever?