4 ms·
This doesn't strike me as sad. Me neither. But it used to. I was a Star Trek (TOS) kid and grew up assuming I would at least visit planets in adulthood, if not
by crispinb 7y ago
This doesn't strike me as sad.
Me neither. But it used to. I was a Star Trek (TOS) kid and grew up assuming I would at least visit planets in adulthood, if not have a modest spacecraft of my own. Also that the Earth's warring tribes would do away with war & poverty in some utopian approximately Federationish style.
I'm not sure which seems sillier now.
What really strikes me as sad is ...people here on earth seem utterly incapable of living sustainably
That was my post Star Trek dreams phase, which probably lasted through much of my 30's.
Beyond that I've come to accept that it was never biologically plausible that a fairly clever social primate species would (magically?) be able to extend its social/cognitive/conative/affective capacities, evolved to negotiate small group survival and interaction, to the competent management of an entire biosphere.
- yodsanklai 7y ago> the competent management of an entire biosphere. I eventually came at peace with the destruction of the environment when I understood it was is unavoidable, just like our individual death. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. We're just an infinitesimal part of something too big to comprehend.
- crispinb 7y agoWell I'd say it does matter somewhat, or at least it matters 'to us' at a local scale, even if it doesn't ultimately (but then perhaps all 'mattering' is local - it's hard to see what does matter sub specie aeternitatis). I suspect you're right that it was unavoidable, though (unfortunately in my view) we'll never really know, because the attempt to avoid it was never made with any vigour. We bailed out into blinkered nihilism long before we had to.
- randomdude402 7y agoStar Trek TNG got a lot of my attention in my younger years. Back then I thought the prime directive kind of ideals, do not interfere or harm, seemed unrealistic and like something that we wouldn't be capable of if we found something that somebody important wanted. Teleportation seemed like maybe plausible, but quite possibly a bit of a reach. I guess because the Guinness Book of World Records was very popular at the time and we were always hearing about a new fastest car, plane, or something, I really thought we would be cruising around the cosmos at warp speed whatever pretty soon. Maybe lunch at a different planet every other weekend or something reasonable like that. I will probably always be a little sad that it's not going to happen in my lifetime or likely ever.
- crispinb 7y agoThe Star Trek references always generates a bit of wistfulness in me. I think the expectations run a bit deeper than Guinness Book of Records! Indeed some variation on 'progress' or elevated human 'destiny' has been foundational to modernity (clearly since the Enlightenment, or perhaps the Protestant Reformation; but with even deeper historical roots).
- nkrisc 7y agoAlso consider that we, the Earthbound humans, will probably never live comfortably in space, or low gravity environments. We're just not built for it and there are many physiological issues we'd face. That of course doesn't mean humans never will, future generations, should they go to space, will adapt and evolve to their new environments, whether naturally or through deliberate selection. You and I, we never will. But our descendants might.
- crispinb 7y agoI suspect if our 'civilisation' continued long enough to do serious manned space exploration, low gravity is an issue we'd find a technical fix for. Your guess is as good as mine though. It's pretty clear however that we're unlikely to make it that far.