6 ms·
> How can humans not be the cause humanity's biggest problems? That's a pretty good indicator of a civilization's state. For an advanced one, the answer to you
by jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
> How can humans not be the cause humanity's biggest problems?
That's a pretty good indicator of a civilization's state. For an advanced one, the answer to your question would be "it's nowhere near the top worries". All human-made horrors (war, climate change, etc.) would be left far behind.
If we were as smart as we think we are, our biggest problems would be rogue asteroids, solar storms and aggressive aliens, not human geopolitical bullshit, poisoning our water, or destroying our own ecosystem.
- mrmanner 6y agoTrue, but also the other way around: A less advanced civilization would have much more trouble with elephants, sea urchins, bacteria, and other natural factors than with humans.
- notum 6y agoDamn those sea urchins!
- toomuchredbull 6y agoStepping on a sea urchin is no beuno. I remember one time snorkelling and I was being pulled by a rip tide and I was like no big deal, I can just slowly head a different direction until I started being pulled barely past sea urchins on corals and then I was freaked out. They are dastardly.
- notum 6y agoI heard they taste pretty good though.
- klodolph 6y agoOnly fresh, they quickly start to smell off.
- libraryatnight 6y agoWhenever I see them eaten on a cooking show I get the impression I couldn't handle the texture.
- sigzero 6y agoSea urchins unite!
- delaaxe 6y agoBy default, nature is an aggressive and competitive environment. It's only after we barricaded ourselves in towers protected by walls that we started to find predatory animals cute (and even made children's toys in their image)
- adolph 6y agoWhat is nature different from the environment? Is nature not the environment? Is it truly aggressive and competitive or does it seek balance and evolution, or maybe it is and does not seek? Does applying those adjectives personify and build emotion into nature where none exists?
- LASR 6y agoI'd like to wager that the "environment" is any set of conditions that favors some attributes in the actors within it. So, it can be hierarchically defined and potentially spans any number of sub-environments. Time is a universal concept that spans across all environments. Over time, actors with attributes will flourish in the environments where those attributes are favored. So example: Political environment (in a democracy) Politicians with higher popularity will flourish. Academic environment: Students with higher grades will flourish. The universal environment: Whatever is most able to survive will flourish.
- kbenson 6y ago> It's only after we barricaded ourselves in towers protected by walls that we started to find predatory animals cute I don't think that's entirely accurate. Dogs were domesticated well over 10k years ago, possibly close to 30k years ago. I see no reason to think that people didn't find puppies cute then as well since the reasons why we think of baby animals cute seems to be related to the same pattern recognition that causes us to recognize those attributes in human infants and think they are cute. The version of animals we find "cute" are all represented with infantile portions. There is something to be said for removal of danger as a prerequisite though (I doubt most people would have been receptive to the teddy bear in the 1920's if problems with bears were still frequent).
- adolph 6y agoAgain, question the premise holding in your mind’s hand a momento mori. All those things can and likely will happen. If the key advancement of human civilization was in virtue, would those things be a cause for worry or suffering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori
- pertymcpert 6y agoUhhh...yes?
- rank0 6y agoI'm not sure I buy that. There's not any proof that a more advanced civilization exists. Even if we assume that one does exist, why does it follow that they are immune to war, oppression, power struggles etc? The only data point we have suggests otherwise. Or maybe the aliens are all holding hands in a circle singing kumbayah?
- deeeeplearning 6y agoImagine you are an advanced civ with weapons hardly imaginable to current humans. Anti-Matter bombs, GRB strength energy weapons, etc, who even knows what is possible. With weapons like that even a run of the mill rogue political group, terrorist or whoever could probably trivially destroy an entire planet. It stands to reason that if they are able to continue to exist as some kind of multi-planetary species they have figured out a way to avoid killing themselves.
- rorykoehler 6y agoWe have more data points in our imagination and it isn’t hard to imagine a more advanced peaceful civilisation.
- hyperpallium2 6y agoNature often seems idyllic, when it has reached a stable equilibrium. But what it really is, is a ruthless and absolute class system, where each species "knows" its place, and has settled in to make the best of its lot. The disruptions to equilibrium that we witness are almost always man-made. But there have been others, caused by new species, ice ages, asteriods, the Great Oxygenation Event, etc. Alien civilization might be at equilibrium. Or, if we meet them, they may more likely be in an expansionist phase. But I think a civilization that harnesses its conflicts - as we try to, with competing businesses, scientists, olitical parties, sporting teams - will have greater long-term success than a destructive, exploutative culture, by definition. It's not that competition is "good", but they we have aggressive aspects seeking dominance, and we are better off shaping them than having tribal warfare, raiding parties, etc which is more our natural state. And something like it is part of the nature of life itself.