>Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. It all gets very circular. The important "meaning" stuff could

>Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. It all gets very circular. The important "meaning" stuff could survive in the next successor apex life form, let's call it "whatever." Which btw will have an environment, which you may consider an aspect of its whateverness, if not its humanness. And its whateverness will give its life meaning, etc. etc. So there is nothing all that special about humans, in other words, other than we have achieved a lot (not only technologically, but also intellectually) to date relative to other organisms we know about. >Given our track record, if we designed our own new form it wouldn't be some higher natural form but a dispassionately "optimal" one. This reminds me of the artist Pablo Picasso who said of computers "...they are useless. They can only give you answers." implying that they can't ask questions or come up with new things. Why did he think that? I'm at a loss to come up with any reason other than ignorance. Computers are perfectly capable of surprising everyone with new capabilities each year. We don't have a track record to speak of with artificial life creation, but the danger of creating a boring monolithic life form is not unknown. Usually when we identify problems like this, we find solutions for them. Imagining that we can't is like imagining that computers can only give answers. It's closing yourself off to possibilities emerging from something that is very much open ended and continuing to evolve. It's a kind of religious thinking in that it comes down to faith that humans are, for some slippery reason, uniquely special in ways that nothing else ever can be.