9 ms·

I’m glad that not everyone in human history has shared your bright outlook, otherwise we would still live in caves…

by nubero 6y ago

kieranmaine 6y ago
Could it be the case that a bright outlook leads people to overlook issues that need to be addressed. Maybe a more depressive (or realistic) disposition motivates people to enact change.
- sekai 6y ago
  Let's look at this way, humanity needs to become multiplanetary species to prevent extinction if some sort of cataclysm happens on Earth: nuclear war; Yellowstone erupts, etc. Compared to that, any other problem seems insignificant.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    Life will go on in other parts of the universe, and all life, no matter where they locate themselves, will have some kind of existential threat. And it doesn't matter how many Dyson spheres are made, if humans aren't dedicated to improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering, there's little real 'significance' to extending the project of humanity compared to any other life-form.
    - ZitchDog 6y ago
      I’m sure you’re right, although I’m not convinced that anything like human consciousness will be reproduced, which is a shame.
    - shdh 6y ago
      > improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering You cannot eliminate suffering. > Life will go on in other parts of the universe, and all life, no matter where they locate themselves, will have some kind of existential threat. There's no guarantee or evidence that there is sentient life in the universe
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        > You cannot eliminate suffering. != improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering > There's no guarantee or evidence that there is sentient life in the universe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24067017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24067017
    - bbojan 6y ago
      How do you know there is life in other parts of the universe? Do you at least consider a possibility that life originated only once?
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        Let's say by chance we discover an oracle, that could reveal with perfect certainty whether life existed anywhere else in the universe. I wager, that if I made some non-trivial wager with any other reasonable (and educated) person holding this contrarian view, they would back down before the oracle revealed its answer.
  - nfoz 6y ago
    This will sound weird, but I have no idea why anyone cares about the abstract "survival of human species". I care very deeply about the lives of people actually living here right now. But if Earth is wiped out, what does it matter that some humans are alive somewhere? Except of course that I'm glad for them that they didn't get killed. But we're talking about generations from now anyway, and there are more direct ways to stop people from dying here today.
    - sekai 6y ago
      Because it's not the end? I think we strive to continue on into the unknown.
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      Because it’s mostly a lie people tell themselves, similar to ‘I’m sure I am a good person’. How are you so sure? There’s a lot of evidence that points to the fact that on a global scale, we can barely care about stuff geographically adjacent to us, or worse, socially (class) adjacent to us, but here we are claiming we care about generations beyond us. Big old lie.
    - swader999 6y ago
      Because our code must live on.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - menybuvico 6y ago
      There is the more generic idea of leaving a track in history, making sure one's offspring survives. If one of my descendants make it off-planet and thrives there once the Zombies attack/the meteor strikes/the nukes go off then my line will continue. I have no logic explanation for wanting to continue my bloodline, but I guess it's just a natural instinct. The second reason to get off-world is the more far-fetched one, but assuming we can establish that other worlds are dead or sterile then we are free to customize it as we please without having to feel bad about it. In the long run we could leave Earth completely, allowing whomever comes next to develop freely without our intervention.
  - reddog 6y ago
    If there was a full scale nuclear war. And then the next week the Yellowstone super volcano erupted. And then the week after that an asteroid as big as the one that killed the dinosaurs hit Eurasia, earth would still be wildly more habitable that Mars.
    - stallmanite 6y ago
      And after a collision like the one that created the moon? How habitable during a gamma ray burst?
      - Koshkin 6y ago
        ... and wha' if Earth jus' 'splodes one day... (takes another sip)
        UnFleshedOne 6y ago
        That's a bit too much, but we still have a few month left in 2020...
  - hnrq 6y ago
    I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was detonated, it would still be orders of magnitude easier to survive on what remains of Earth than to live in Mars. I'm not saying there are no existential risks at all, but being on other planets would not make us any more likely to survive to them than to simply being very well isolated on Earth (which would cost 1000x less). Developing space technology already has all sorts of benefits and it doesn't need this poor argument in its favor.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory. Any significant social experiment is basically impossible on Earth because every space and person is claimed property by an existing state. Mars would also offer cultural redundancy. Also, sometimes people choose to do things brcause they are hard.
      - sangnoir 6y ago
        > Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory If I were a betting person, I'm not sure I'd go all-in on a CEO-Emperor-King of Mars over existing nation-states on Terra
        UnFleshedOne 6y ago
        Is that a bet on a basically functional society, or a bet on which place is better to live in for individual?
    - menybuvico 6y ago
      Well, there is the question of whether we will ever have the possibility of developing this technology again. I see no immediate risks to life on Earth, and considering we're quite hard to get rid of, I suspect the human race will be here for quite some time yet. The ability to do a large-scale settlement on other planetary bodies on the other hand, might go away considerably sooner, and who knows if/when we will be able to do it again if we ever end up in a situation where it might be needed. Regardless, there are other reasons, as you say. For one, space-based manufacturing would allow us to increase the standard of living on Earth without having to worry about things like CO2 levels and pollution. If we start commercializing space then I expect colonization to follow as a natural result of that and we won't have to worry about the more philosophical side.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Yes, there is interesting research in evolutionary reasons for human depression, and its role in giving people needed tunnel vision to focus on the self. Of course, this machinery can be medically disrupted by toxins and genetics (air pollution has an impact for example, lead ions, etc.), but there is a ‘healthy’ reason for depression (similarly there is a ‘healthy’ reason for ‘scabs’ and physical wound healing). Most people in the modern era with ‘healthy’ depression are medicating away the effect (you will be shocked if you look into the rates of antidepressant usage in France for example), and this diversion can inadvertently prolong the depression as would be expected (e.g. dealing with symptoms and not cause). Lots of interesting research in this area. tl;dr yes, depression and depressive thoughts are useful for humans in certain cases, which is why we have them
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  If let free to roam intellectually without hinderment, I think such a viewpoint leads to nihilistic cynicism, not constructive action. Which isn’t to say a tempering perspective isn’t at all helpful, I just think in the absence of all optimism (& hope), there’s no room for constructive change To illustrate, your viewpoint seems consistent with the statement: “There can be no great progress, no humanity taking root among the stars unless led by monstrous men.” I hope you don’t consider this a straw argument, but it’s worth considering. To believe that statement is to either believe that a “good” future is necessarily one of stagnation and extinction (whether in 1000 years or 500 million years) OR to excuse the actions of monstrous men. A pessimistic, cynical perspective means no counter-movement, no inclusive cooperative with the goal of space settlement. This isn’t exactly motivating. (And to be clear, from the perspective of history, I do not consider Elon—definitely not perfect—to be monstrous. Neither is SpaceX the work of one man. Gwynne Shotwell is as much the leader of SpaceX as Elon is—although you wouldn’t know it by reading headlines as she doesn’t care for the spotlight—plus thousands of passionate workers (who are co-owners) who believe in this vision and many of whom would be pushing for it even without Elon’s leadership.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
menybuvico 6y ago
I'd prefer corporate warfare in the Asteroid belt over international conflicts in Earth. Regardless, unless we manage to come up with a new system that actually works, chances are that commercialization of space is one of the few ways for us to establish a presence off this planet.

I’m glad that not everyone in human history has shared your bright outlook, otherwise we would still live in caves…

by nubero 6y ago

I’m glad that not everyone in human history has shared your bright outlook, otherwise we would still live in caves…

Could it be the case that a bright outlook leads people to overlook issues that need to be addressed. Maybe a more depressive (or realistic) disposition motivates people to enact change.

sekai 6y ago
Let's look at this way, humanity needs to become multiplanetary species to prevent extinction if some sort of cataclysm happens on Earth: nuclear war; Yellowstone erupts, etc. Compared to that, any other problem seems insignificant.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  Life will go on in other parts of the universe, and all life, no matter where they locate themselves, will have some kind of existential threat. And it doesn't matter how many Dyson spheres are made, if humans aren't dedicated to improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering, there's little real 'significance' to extending the project of humanity compared to any other life-form.
  - ZitchDog 6y ago
    I’m sure you’re right, although I’m not convinced that anything like human consciousness will be reproduced, which is a shame.
  - shdh 6y ago
    > improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering You cannot eliminate suffering. > Life will go on in other parts of the universe, and all life, no matter where they locate themselves, will have some kind of existential threat. There's no guarantee or evidence that there is sentient life in the universe
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > You cannot eliminate suffering. != improving the collective opportunity to live life without suffering > There's no guarantee or evidence that there is sentient life in the universe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24067017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24067017
  - bbojan 6y ago
    How do you know there is life in other parts of the universe? Do you at least consider a possibility that life originated only once?
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      Let's say by chance we discover an oracle, that could reveal with perfect certainty whether life existed anywhere else in the universe. I wager, that if I made some non-trivial wager with any other reasonable (and educated) person holding this contrarian view, they would back down before the oracle revealed its answer.
- nfoz 6y ago
  This will sound weird, but I have no idea why anyone cares about the abstract "survival of human species". I care very deeply about the lives of people actually living here right now. But if Earth is wiped out, what does it matter that some humans are alive somewhere? Except of course that I'm glad for them that they didn't get killed. But we're talking about generations from now anyway, and there are more direct ways to stop people from dying here today.
  - sekai 6y ago
    Because it's not the end? I think we strive to continue on into the unknown.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    Because it’s mostly a lie people tell themselves, similar to ‘I’m sure I am a good person’. How are you so sure? There’s a lot of evidence that points to the fact that on a global scale, we can barely care about stuff geographically adjacent to us, or worse, socially (class) adjacent to us, but here we are claiming we care about generations beyond us. Big old lie.
  - swader999 6y ago
    Because our code must live on.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - menybuvico 6y ago
    There is the more generic idea of leaving a track in history, making sure one's offspring survives. If one of my descendants make it off-planet and thrives there once the Zombies attack/the meteor strikes/the nukes go off then my line will continue. I have no logic explanation for wanting to continue my bloodline, but I guess it's just a natural instinct. The second reason to get off-world is the more far-fetched one, but assuming we can establish that other worlds are dead or sterile then we are free to customize it as we please without having to feel bad about it. In the long run we could leave Earth completely, allowing whomever comes next to develop freely without our intervention.
- reddog 6y ago
  If there was a full scale nuclear war. And then the next week the Yellowstone super volcano erupted. And then the week after that an asteroid as big as the one that killed the dinosaurs hit Eurasia, earth would still be wildly more habitable that Mars.
  - stallmanite 6y ago
    And after a collision like the one that created the moon? How habitable during a gamma ray burst?
    - Koshkin 6y ago
      ... and wha' if Earth jus' 'splodes one day... (takes another sip)
      - UnFleshedOne 6y ago
        That's a bit too much, but we still have a few month left in 2020...
- hnrq 6y ago
  I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was detonated, it would still be orders of magnitude easier to survive on what remains of Earth than to live in Mars. I'm not saying there are no existential risks at all, but being on other planets would not make us any more likely to survive to them than to simply being very well isolated on Earth (which would cost 1000x less). Developing space technology already has all sorts of benefits and it doesn't need this poor argument in its favor.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory. Any significant social experiment is basically impossible on Earth because every space and person is claimed property by an existing state. Mars would also offer cultural redundancy. Also, sometimes people choose to do things brcause they are hard.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      > Every comment of this nature overlooks the challenge of politics and territory If I were a betting person, I'm not sure I'd go all-in on a CEO-Emperor-King of Mars over existing nation-states on Terra
      - UnFleshedOne 6y ago
        Is that a bet on a basically functional society, or a bet on which place is better to live in for individual?
  - menybuvico 6y ago
    Well, there is the question of whether we will ever have the possibility of developing this technology again. I see no immediate risks to life on Earth, and considering we're quite hard to get rid of, I suspect the human race will be here for quite some time yet. The ability to do a large-scale settlement on other planetary bodies on the other hand, might go away considerably sooner, and who knows if/when we will be able to do it again if we ever end up in a situation where it might be needed. Regardless, there are other reasons, as you say. For one, space-based manufacturing would allow us to increase the standard of living on Earth without having to worry about things like CO2 levels and pollution. If we start commercializing space then I expect colonization to follow as a natural result of that and we won't have to worry about the more philosophical side.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Yes, there is interesting research in evolutionary reasons for human depression, and its role in giving people needed tunnel vision to focus on the self. Of course, this machinery can be medically disrupted by toxins and genetics (air pollution has an impact for example, lead ions, etc.), but there is a ‘healthy’ reason for depression (similarly there is a ‘healthy’ reason for ‘scabs’ and physical wound healing). Most people in the modern era with ‘healthy’ depression are medicating away the effect (you will be shocked if you look into the rates of antidepressant usage in France for example), and this diversion can inadvertently prolong the depression as would be expected (e.g. dealing with symptoms and not cause). Lots of interesting research in this area. tl;dr yes, depression and depressive thoughts are useful for humans in certain cases, which is why we have them
Robotbeat 6y ago
If let free to roam intellectually without hinderment, I think such a viewpoint leads to nihilistic cynicism, not constructive action. Which isn’t to say a tempering perspective isn’t at all helpful, I just think in the absence of all optimism (& hope), there’s no room for constructive change To illustrate, your viewpoint seems consistent with the statement: “There can be no great progress, no humanity taking root among the stars unless led by monstrous men.” I hope you don’t consider this a straw argument, but it’s worth considering. To believe that statement is to either believe that a “good” future is necessarily one of stagnation and extinction (whether in 1000 years or 500 million years) OR to excuse the actions of monstrous men. A pessimistic, cynical perspective means no counter-movement, no inclusive cooperative with the goal of space settlement. This isn’t exactly motivating. (And to be clear, from the perspective of history, I do not consider Elon—definitely not perfect—to be monstrous. Neither is SpaceX the work of one man. Gwynne Shotwell is as much the leader of SpaceX as Elon is—although you wouldn’t know it by reading headlines as she doesn’t care for the spotlight—plus thousands of passionate workers (who are co-owners) who believe in this vision and many of whom would be pushing for it even without Elon’s leadership.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

menybuvico 6y ago

I'd prefer corporate warfare in the Asteroid belt over international conflicts in Earth. Regardless, unless we manage to come up with a new system that actually works, chances are that commercialization of space is one of the few ways for us to establish a presence off this planet.