4 ms·
I think the problem is the opposite. We evolved on a planet, so we're only (naturally) suitable to live on a planet. Once we're able to modify ourselves and ou
by wladimir 16y ago
I think the problem is the opposite. We evolved on a planet, so we're only (naturally) suitable to live on a planet.
Once we're able to modify ourselves and our DNA and outrun evolutionary constraints, that might change. Once we're a swarm of small, near-immortal devices, I suppose exploring the universe on large scale will make a lot more sense.
But in the short run, it's fun and interesting to explore the solar system in human form, even given the limits of our current technology. And to not worry about what a small, insignificant fraction it is, because it's still a hell of a lot more than we've seen until now.
- schumitsch 16y agodefine "we"
- wladimir 16y agoHumanity, and everything that follows from it.
- sigzero 16y agoOnce we are a "swarm" we will no long be human. I think that is a nightmare vision you have put for there.
- wladimir 16y agoHumanity is already a swarm. A swarm consists of individual animals that more or less coordinate to go in a certain direction (so this is different from a hive mind). Also, it is 1000ths (or even millions) of years in the future I was talking about. Why would our current moral standards still hold?
- ceejayoz 16y agoIf physical function is what makes us human, Stephen Hawking isn't much more human than a mind in a robot.