4 ms·
That's fair, but it'll be sad to see our species added to the dustbin of history after squandering such a great opportunity to move from planetary to stellar ci
by gooseus 9y ago
That's fair, but it'll be sad to see our species added to the dustbin of history after squandering such a great opportunity to move from planetary to stellar civilization.
If there happen to be any other sentient species watching us, I can only assume they spend most of the time face-palming, head-shaking and eye-rolling.
- colordrops 9y ago> I can only assume they spend most of the time face-palming, head-shaking and eye-rolling Or they see us as a natural phenomenon following similar patterns to other fledgling civilizations. We don't roll our eyes when a pathogen is so virulent it kills its host before it propagates.
- ams6110 9y agoMaybe there aren't any. Maybe all sentient species self-destruct when they discover and start developing technology but don't understand all the implications. There's a theory along these lines that explains why we've never found any signs of extraterrestrial intelligent life.
- MoOmer 9y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
- ams6110 9y agoYes. I actually subscribe to the idea that local maxima at a lower level if sentience is much more common. We'd probably still be a dinosaur-populated planet if not for a random asteroid.
- systemWizord 9y agoIn my humble opinion, antinatalism contributes much to it. Smartest people I know are strictly antinatalist, and it makes sense. What's the point of keeping a specie alive? The very product of universe's RNG? Life is mostly suffering as it is, inter-stellar life would probably be even worse. I'm personally not invested in the environment-preservation fight at all.
- gooseus 9y agoMaybe I'm an idiot, but I find antinatalist views to be small-minded, selfish and cowardly. In a vast universe of dead matter which tends toward equilibrium and decay there exists a process that tends toward complexity and order. Life exists in this universe, it's a part it's nature and so is consciousness. Whether by design or by some random chance, it is self-evident that it exists. Not only that, you can find it adapted to the extremes of every environment it encounters. Suffering is the engine of adaptation and everything we consider valuable has only come about through the immense suffering and sacrifice of those that have lived. We, as conscious life, are the only known species which have the possibility to adapt to an environment outside of Earth. I believe, without any external spiritual input, that our responsibility is quite clear. How much suffering is a function of the zero-sum game that is played in our (mostly) closed environment? Yes, expanding into space may increase the overall number of individuals suffering, but isn't it really suffering per capita that should be the measure? Suffering isn't to be ignored and I believe seeking to reduce when possible is admirable and morally right... but to abdicate our responsibility to the process of life and allow it halt (which it will eventually on this planet)? Simply because some people feel bad about things sometimes? No, I'm not buying it for a second.
- systemWizord 9y agoYes, I agree, you are an idiot. "We" don't have responsibility to the process of life, it's your animal programming overriding all logic and rationality with stupid rhetoric like entropy vs complexity and other such mindless crap.
- gooseus 9y agoMeh, obviously you're not the "we" I'm referring to... We appreciate your dedication to not propagating yourself, enjoy the rest of your time.