3 ms·

> "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. This is incorrect - see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-beautiful

> "beauty" as a concept would not exist if we were not here. This is incorrect - see e.g. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-beautiful http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150511-why-are-animals-so-b... or https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution... One of the unattractive human attributes is our self-centered arrogance. And unfortunately, combine with our other traits this results in some pretty bad behaviors that have a terrible impact on other species. The question of whether the planet would be better off without humans is not so obviously answered in the negative. But arrogance lifted to these levels would probably not exist if we weren't here.

zokula 5y ago
You just proved his/her point, there is no beauty without humans.
- antonvs 5y ago
  You'd have to explain that. I specifically provided a couple of sources as counterexamples. It seems to me you're underscoring the point about arrogance, though.
  - fastball 5y ago
    I'm talking about the concept of beauty. Yes animals and various natural things are "beautiful", but what does that mean without humans to define/identify/catalogue/etc that beauty. Animals don't appreciate beauty for beauty, they see something that we call beautiful and say to themselves "wow those colors are bright I want to have sex with that" – that's it. The universe doesn't care about us. The universe doesn't care about the things you think are "beautiful". Tomorrow a planet-busting asteroid could collide with the earth and destroy every last bit of life on it (except maybe Tardigrades). The only thing that could possibly ameliorate that is humanity continuing to expand and grow, being a space-faring species, etc. That way some life (and therefore beauty) could be saved when we take those things with us into the stars. Unless and until we find other intelligent species that are better stewards than us, we're all the universe has got, no matter how shit we are at the job.

zokula 5y ago

You just proved his/her point, there is no beauty without humans.

antonvs 5y ago
You'd have to explain that. I specifically provided a couple of sources as counterexamples. It seems to me you're underscoring the point about arrogance, though.
- fastball 5y ago
  I'm talking about the concept of beauty. Yes animals and various natural things are "beautiful", but what does that mean without humans to define/identify/catalogue/etc that beauty. Animals don't appreciate beauty for beauty, they see something that we call beautiful and say to themselves "wow those colors are bright I want to have sex with that" – that's it. The universe doesn't care about us. The universe doesn't care about the things you think are "beautiful". Tomorrow a planet-busting asteroid could collide with the earth and destroy every last bit of life on it (except maybe Tardigrades). The only thing that could possibly ameliorate that is humanity continuing to expand and grow, being a space-faring species, etc. That way some life (and therefore beauty) could be saved when we take those things with us into the stars. Unless and until we find other intelligent species that are better stewards than us, we're all the universe has got, no matter how shit we are at the job.