5 ms·

> It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below

by baxtr 4y ago

> It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral. Very well written. Conveys his feelings quite well I find.

seydor 4y ago
Also technically an impossibility, since evolution would not be possible without extinction
- pohl 4y ago
  Sure, there's no life without death, but you're kind of underselling the Anthropocene Mass Extinction a wee bit, aren't you?
  - seydor 4y ago
    Those are unscientific things. I didn't expect that what i said would be considered controversial. We live in extraordinary challenging times and people should steer away from sentimental fluff.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Sentimental fluff? To be human is to have emotions, being sentimental is one type of emotion you can feel. Especially if you feel like Earth is currently being overrun and destroyed by humanity at breakneck speeds. To feel emotional about this OK, as long as you also stay grounded and realistic. But we should not hide our emotions, it's possible to be both emotional and rational.
    - 8jef 4y ago
      The fluff is the stuff only those who are aware of what's happening, of what happened (not just of the scientific things), can experience. Earth, we are trashing it, not up for debate, not anymore. Probably not trashing it as much as we could, but more than enough, which is obvious as a nose in a face. When confronted to the cold embrace of those who can't see and feel anything of the sort, some can only resort to their sentiments, the _sentimental stuff_ as you frame it, which can only follow the drama, never preceding it. Just like arriving onto a crime scene and yelling at the crying survivors to shut up, without any consideration for the crime committed before, or any of its consequences.
    - dwaltrip 4y ago
      Extinction rates can be measured and modeled. What’s unscientific about that?
    - trinsic2 4y ago
      Life isn't just about science, contrary to popular belief. In fact, you can do better science by making the mind-body connection to the unseen and unverified. Knowing that something exists outside of scientific understanding while grounding yourself to reality strengthens awareness and removes mental positions/projections which are barriers to real science.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    No he’s really not
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    Not really. As sentimental and time limited beings we don’t want to see things go extinct since we won’t be able to experience them again or be around to see what comes next. But in the larger picture we’re actually quite tame when it comes to extinction events. At least we are making an effort to limit the damage we’re doing. Space rocks and chemistry can’t do that. In the long run other species will evolve and maybe with luck we’ll have a hand in steering that evolution.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      If we domesticate the majority of the planet nothing substantial will evolve without us controlling it. We have replaced a large percentage of wild organic biomass with us and our pets and cattle and farms.
      - towaway15463 4y ago
        We’re still very far off from that and trending away from using more land in developed countries.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Really? "According to the a 2011 biomass census compiled by Vaclav Smil, human activity over the last 5,000 years has reduced total global biomass by about 50 percent". http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs61...
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        'it's nothing compared to an asteroid impact' is just the elaboration of 'humans can't impact climate lol' or 'obviously you don't even care about the heat death of the universe'. While we shouldn't paralyse ourselves with existential guilt, evoking apocalyptic scenarios in a policy discussion is usually intended to derail discussion and prevent the emergence of consensus, ime.
- loceng 4y ago
  Not sure why you're being so downvoted, must be people who haven't read Darwin or know about mass extinction from things like floods and meteorites - like that wiped out most dinosaurs. If we don't get society under "control" - and not through the ideological-tyrannical effort underway globally currently - but through voluntarily taking action through adequate organization of listening to and following competent leadership (voting with our dollars, say by buying a Tesla vehicle, etc) - then we'll probably destroy most humans/life on Earth anyhow and whatever survives will be able to continue to evolve; and maybe, if any humans remain, they'll be wise enough to pass on and successfully counter tyrannical forces that exist within the human genome.
  - bagels 4y ago
    It's just literally not true. Species can evolve without their predecessors going extinct?
    - loceng 4y ago
      Fair enough, my dislike of downvotes had me not carefully reading his short comment that I clearly skimmed.
  - titzer 4y ago
    Sadly, it's the mad pursuit of said dollars that seems to be the primary driver behind our voracious appetite to consume nature.
    - loceng 4y ago
      Good thing then most of the riches in the near future available will be from space exploration and mining, that may then redirect the greedy to direct their resources to that endeavour?
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Your flippancy about mass extinction leads me to believe you aren't internalizing any of the suffering therein, or the loss. Extinction happens, and, more broadly, death happens. However, we don't stand and deliver a eulogy composed of "idk, people die, no big deal" at a family member's funeral. Immense loss imparts grief.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  That's technically wrong. Evolution is possible via expansion into new biomes, or by being able to use/exploit as-yet unmetabolized compounds, or through shifting inter-species relationships (e.g. entering (or leaving) symbiosis).
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Extinction is not limited to species. Species arent really a thing as one eventually transforms into another over near-infinite steps. Only genes/traits matter. Evolution is in fact impossible without the loss of traits between generations. Extinction of traits in favor of better ones is baked in to the very definition.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      > Only genes/traits matter. and yet almost every selection mechanism can only operate on phenotypic forms. The nature of a "species" is a shorthand for "sufficiently distinctive phenotype(s) that evolution will operate distinctly on this group of individuals", and in this sense, "species" do matter. > Extinction of traits in favor of better ones is baked in to the very definition. I don't know what definition you're talking about, but this also completely wrong. Evolution can generate new traits without old ones vanishing, and that can be true whether the new ones have higher or lower fitness than the old. Evolution is a change generation mechanism primarily; selection is a secondary mechanism and at various times and places, selection pressure can be extraordinarily weak, allowing a large diversity of traits to coexist.
      - sandworm101 4y ago
        Not having a trait is itself a trait. A snake that evolves legs has lost the trait of the legless bodyform.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    Technically it’s possible in any environment except those that kill 100% of the population. Whatever survives, survives and reproduces.
xwolfi 4y ago
But he must also accept that life comes from death and the evolution (we should really call it a competition) he speaks off extinguished a large numbers of species. We might be one of them, and we're also victim of our own nature. We can try to resist it, but what will arise from our extinction ? Maybe something better, we have no special purpose nor duty.
- amelius 4y ago
  No. We are the first species that can understand the consequences of our doings, and thus we are fully accountable. Saying that maybe something better will arise is wishful thinking.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    I’d argue that people don’t actually comprehend consequence very well, and I sincerely doubt we do it much better than some other species. We have priorities which overwhelm our ability to reason well and self-serving tendencies which seem to exacerbate this problem. We’re good at technology but woefully bad at many things. I’m not aiming to argue here, especially not to suggest we shouldn’t be accountable. I suppose I think we give ourselves too much credit and other species not enough. We are objectively bad, especially collectively, at making good choices for the world we inhabit. It’s evidently a deficiency of our species.

by baxtr 4y ago

seydor 4y ago

Also technically an impossibility, since evolution would not be possible without extinction

pohl 4y ago
Sure, there's no life without death, but you're kind of underselling the Anthropocene Mass Extinction a wee bit, aren't you?
- seydor 4y ago
  Those are unscientific things. I didn't expect that what i said would be considered controversial. We live in extraordinary challenging times and people should steer away from sentimental fluff.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Sentimental fluff? To be human is to have emotions, being sentimental is one type of emotion you can feel. Especially if you feel like Earth is currently being overrun and destroyed by humanity at breakneck speeds. To feel emotional about this OK, as long as you also stay grounded and realistic. But we should not hide our emotions, it's possible to be both emotional and rational.
  - 8jef 4y ago
    The fluff is the stuff only those who are aware of what's happening, of what happened (not just of the scientific things), can experience. Earth, we are trashing it, not up for debate, not anymore. Probably not trashing it as much as we could, but more than enough, which is obvious as a nose in a face. When confronted to the cold embrace of those who can't see and feel anything of the sort, some can only resort to their sentiments, the _sentimental stuff_ as you frame it, which can only follow the drama, never preceding it. Just like arriving onto a crime scene and yelling at the crying survivors to shut up, without any consideration for the crime committed before, or any of its consequences.
  - dwaltrip 4y ago
    Extinction rates can be measured and modeled. What’s unscientific about that?
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    Life isn't just about science, contrary to popular belief. In fact, you can do better science by making the mind-body connection to the unseen and unverified. Knowing that something exists outside of scientific understanding while grounding yourself to reality strengthens awareness and removes mental positions/projections which are barriers to real science.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  No he’s really not
- towaway15463 4y ago
  Not really. As sentimental and time limited beings we don’t want to see things go extinct since we won’t be able to experience them again or be around to see what comes next. But in the larger picture we’re actually quite tame when it comes to extinction events. At least we are making an effort to limit the damage we’re doing. Space rocks and chemistry can’t do that. In the long run other species will evolve and maybe with luck we’ll have a hand in steering that evolution.
  - therealdrag0 4y ago
    If we domesticate the majority of the planet nothing substantial will evolve without us controlling it. We have replaced a large percentage of wild organic biomass with us and our pets and cattle and farms.
    - towaway15463 4y ago
      We’re still very far off from that and trending away from using more land in developed countries.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Really? "According to the a 2011 biomass census compiled by Vaclav Smil, human activity over the last 5,000 years has reduced total global biomass by about 50 percent". http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs61...
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        'it's nothing compared to an asteroid impact' is just the elaboration of 'humans can't impact climate lol' or 'obviously you don't even care about the heat death of the universe'. While we shouldn't paralyse ourselves with existential guilt, evoking apocalyptic scenarios in a policy discussion is usually intended to derail discussion and prevent the emergence of consensus, ime.
loceng 4y ago
Not sure why you're being so downvoted, must be people who haven't read Darwin or know about mass extinction from things like floods and meteorites - like that wiped out most dinosaurs. If we don't get society under "control" - and not through the ideological-tyrannical effort underway globally currently - but through voluntarily taking action through adequate organization of listening to and following competent leadership (voting with our dollars, say by buying a Tesla vehicle, etc) - then we'll probably destroy most humans/life on Earth anyhow and whatever survives will be able to continue to evolve; and maybe, if any humans remain, they'll be wise enough to pass on and successfully counter tyrannical forces that exist within the human genome.
- bagels 4y ago
  It's just literally not true. Species can evolve without their predecessors going extinct?
  - loceng 4y ago
    Fair enough, my dislike of downvotes had me not carefully reading his short comment that I clearly skimmed.
- titzer 4y ago
  Sadly, it's the mad pursuit of said dollars that seems to be the primary driver behind our voracious appetite to consume nature.
  - loceng 4y ago
    Good thing then most of the riches in the near future available will be from space exploration and mining, that may then redirect the greedy to direct their resources to that endeavour?
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Your flippancy about mass extinction leads me to believe you aren't internalizing any of the suffering therein, or the loss. Extinction happens, and, more broadly, death happens. However, we don't stand and deliver a eulogy composed of "idk, people die, no big deal" at a family member's funeral. Immense loss imparts grief.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
That's technically wrong. Evolution is possible via expansion into new biomes, or by being able to use/exploit as-yet unmetabolized compounds, or through shifting inter-species relationships (e.g. entering (or leaving) symbiosis).
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Extinction is not limited to species. Species arent really a thing as one eventually transforms into another over near-infinite steps. Only genes/traits matter. Evolution is in fact impossible without the loss of traits between generations. Extinction of traits in favor of better ones is baked in to the very definition.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Only genes/traits matter. and yet almost every selection mechanism can only operate on phenotypic forms. The nature of a "species" is a shorthand for "sufficiently distinctive phenotype(s) that evolution will operate distinctly on this group of individuals", and in this sense, "species" do matter. > Extinction of traits in favor of better ones is baked in to the very definition. I don't know what definition you're talking about, but this also completely wrong. Evolution can generate new traits without old ones vanishing, and that can be true whether the new ones have higher or lower fitness than the old. Evolution is a change generation mechanism primarily; selection is a secondary mechanism and at various times and places, selection pressure can be extraordinarily weak, allowing a large diversity of traits to coexist.
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      Not having a trait is itself a trait. A snake that evolves legs has lost the trait of the legless bodyform.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  Technically it’s possible in any environment except those that kill 100% of the population. Whatever survives, survives and reproduces.

xwolfi 4y ago

But he must also accept that life comes from death and the evolution (we should really call it a competition) he speaks off extinguished a large numbers of species. We might be one of them, and we're also victim of our own nature. We can try to resist it, but what will arise from our extinction ? Maybe something better, we have no special purpose nor duty.

amelius 4y ago
No. We are the first species that can understand the consequences of our doings, and thus we are fully accountable. Saying that maybe something better will arise is wishful thinking.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  I’d argue that people don’t actually comprehend consequence very well, and I sincerely doubt we do it much better than some other species. We have priorities which overwhelm our ability to reason well and self-serving tendencies which seem to exacerbate this problem. We’re good at technology but woefully bad at many things. I’m not aiming to argue here, especially not to suggest we shouldn’t be accountable. I suppose I think we give ourselves too much credit and other species not enough. We are objectively bad, especially collectively, at making good choices for the world we inhabit. It’s evidently a deficiency of our species.