6 ms·

I don't think you'd have to assume that's a dystopian scenario. The Copernican Revolution and associated existential crises -- that we're not in a privileged lo

by mds 11y ago

I don't think you'd have to assume that's a dystopian scenario. The Copernican Revolution and associated existential crises -- that we're not in a privileged location at the center of the universe -- changed human culture mostly for the good.

etangent 11y ago
My question was "what if we realize that life isn't special?" -- not "what if we realize that humans aren't special?". The fact that three commenters misinterpreted the former for the latter is only a proof of our anthropic bias. We are not at all post-Copernican, strictly speaking. We value living things like we never did before. You occasionally hear discussion about granting rights to non-human animals: dolphins, apes, etc. That almost never happened in human history (save for a few cultures where certain animals are held to be holy). You are talking about moving away from anthropocentrism, while the scenario I'm describing is a bleak world where all life as such isn't valued. In that world, there isn't even any point of talking about "saving the planet," because "for whom are you saving it for? For polar bears? How are they any better than lifeless rocks: both products of geology?"
- narag 11y ago
  For me that's a totally alien way of looking at things. It's like projecting caste prejudices to all living thing, that BTW seems much more anthropic biased.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  I think I can speak from experience, you mostly describe may way of looking at life. It's not without respect though. Even if life is nothing special in the grand scheme of things, it can still be very special from a subjective perspective. For me the respect, and awe, for life comes from how each individual is the proverbial snowflake, as an instance of life, and an incredibly complex, emergent and dynamic one at that. Take something completely lifeless like a stalactite as a reference. Tehy can take millenniums to form, but the process really isn't very special, just water dripping from the ceiling. Which most people realize, yet most people still feel a certain amount of awe when presented with one, and would be appalled if someone just decided to take it down for no reason. That would be disrespectful. It's the same thing when we talk about species going extinct. Most of us has no particular connection to most species, and shouldn't be bothered. But still, every species has its own unique character and beauty, which will leave an emptiness behind of possibilities lost, so is a sad thing to loose for that reason alone. So I think discovering more instance of living things would not make life less valued, on the contrary, more uniqeness would only bring more things to be in awe of.
  - etangent 11y ago
    Yes, we agree that living processes are special, but part of what makes them so special is because we believe them to be unique and rare. My whole point was, what if we discover, at some point in the future, that life in the universe is not rare, but rather an inevitable process of geology, like the stalactite you're describing? (that was a great analogy, btw.) We will still think of species' as unique (identical biochemistry is exceedingly unlikely), yet life will become somewhat "commodified" in a sense, if you understand that comparison. Obviously, I took some liberty in describing a nightmarish "moral crisis" scenario; I am just surprised that my comment garnered so many responses, all of them misunderstanding my main argument in one way or another.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  What is the alternative? That we actually are special snowflakes? I think that is the more terrifying eventuality - but of course, this is a decision anyone participating in the question has to make: are we special or are we not-special, and if either is true, what difference does it make? Answer: it really doesn't make any difference. If we discover life on Mars or not, we still haven't taken the time nor made the effort to talk to the dolphins and ask them what they think about it ..
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

by mds 11y ago

etangent 11y ago

My question was "what if we realize that life isn't special?" -- not "what if we realize that humans aren't special?". The fact that three commenters misinterpreted the former for the latter is only a proof of our anthropic bias. We are not at all post-Copernican, strictly speaking. We value living things like we never did before. You occasionally hear discussion about granting rights to non-human animals: dolphins, apes, etc. That almost never happened in human history (save for a few cultures where certain animals are held to be holy). You are talking about moving away from anthropocentrism, while the scenario I'm describing is a bleak world where all life as such isn't valued. In that world, there isn't even any point of talking about "saving the planet," because "for whom are you saving it for? For polar bears? How are they any better than lifeless rocks: both products of geology?"

narag 11y ago
For me that's a totally alien way of looking at things. It's like projecting caste prejudices to all living thing, that BTW seems much more anthropic biased.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
I think I can speak from experience, you mostly describe may way of looking at life. It's not without respect though. Even if life is nothing special in the grand scheme of things, it can still be very special from a subjective perspective. For me the respect, and awe, for life comes from how each individual is the proverbial snowflake, as an instance of life, and an incredibly complex, emergent and dynamic one at that. Take something completely lifeless like a stalactite as a reference. Tehy can take millenniums to form, but the process really isn't very special, just water dripping from the ceiling. Which most people realize, yet most people still feel a certain amount of awe when presented with one, and would be appalled if someone just decided to take it down for no reason. That would be disrespectful. It's the same thing when we talk about species going extinct. Most of us has no particular connection to most species, and shouldn't be bothered. But still, every species has its own unique character and beauty, which will leave an emptiness behind of possibilities lost, so is a sad thing to loose for that reason alone. So I think discovering more instance of living things would not make life less valued, on the contrary, more uniqeness would only bring more things to be in awe of.
- etangent 11y ago
  Yes, we agree that living processes are special, but part of what makes them so special is because we believe them to be unique and rare. My whole point was, what if we discover, at some point in the future, that life in the universe is not rare, but rather an inevitable process of geology, like the stalactite you're describing? (that was a great analogy, btw.) We will still think of species' as unique (identical biochemistry is exceedingly unlikely), yet life will become somewhat "commodified" in a sense, if you understand that comparison. Obviously, I took some liberty in describing a nightmarish "moral crisis" scenario; I am just surprised that my comment garnered so many responses, all of them misunderstanding my main argument in one way or another.
fit2rule 11y ago
What is the alternative? That we actually are special snowflakes? I think that is the more terrifying eventuality - but of course, this is a decision anyone participating in the question has to make: are we special or are we not-special, and if either is true, what difference does it make? Answer: it really doesn't make any difference. If we discover life on Mars or not, we still haven't taken the time nor made the effort to talk to the dolphins and ask them what they think about it ..
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]