3 ms·

This seems a bit nihilistic, what other sort of universe is there for humans besides a human-centric one? Shouldn't humans indeed pursue human-centric concerns?

phoe-krk 4y ago
I think the mistake is to consider "human" something separate from the rest of the world as opposed to a more holistic point of view. The fact that we have a somewhat complicated mind capable of abstract thinking doesn't mean we're anything more than bacteria on the grander scale. The fact that our species has developed all over Earth and became its self-appointed "stewards" doesn't mean that a well-placed asteroid can't turn our "stewardship" into a futile battle for survival.
- civilized 4y ago
  From my perspective, you're not identifying an intellectual mistake made by others. You're talking about a difference of values. You don't highly value people being around to observe and participate in the universe, while others care a lot more about this.
- true_religion 4y ago
  What you are saying now is very different from the calculus required to determine if humanities extinction is a catastrophe. It is one by our point of view, and most humans argue that (a) our point of view is the only one that matters since in the grand aspect we haven’t found any other intelligent point of view, though we theorize they may exist and (b) judging the pain of death as catastrophe is a personal choice, even on Earth we allow people to call the death of their loved ones catastrophic even if other humans continue to go on living blithely unaware of their pain.
- Shorel 4y ago
  Dismissal of the result of some billion years of constant adaptation and struggle is also a mistake, IMO. We are so much more than bacteria, and until proved otherwise, so far we are the smartest beings in the universe. We will at some point, stop existing as a species. This doesn't mean everything we do is meaningless. Eternity and infinity intelligence are not the only measures we can choose to value ourselves, in fact, they smell too much like religion for my personal taste. What we have is more struggle, more problems to overcome, more challenges and the possibility of succeeding, the possibility of leaving the solar system before the sun dies and kills the earth. Step by step. Value the small victories. We have reached very far, so far.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  There is so much of this downplaying of humans. We are certainly more than bacteria are any reasonable “scale”. We can create transmissions that reach other galaxies, we can split atoms, and even consider ourselves to be equal to bacteria because we conjure vague notions of incomprehensible advanced species. It’s just a very odd kind of self-deprecation.
__s 4y ago
I think any intelligence persisting forward in time is success. If ai takes over it'll have a much easier time traveling at speed of light. & patience too. Humanity won't need to be slaughtered; microplastics in our balls will make us sterile enough
- Stupulous 4y ago
  I would think consciousness, rather than intelligence, is the important component that should persist irrespective of humanity. Intelligence, curiousity, and creativity are important too, but on their own they don't hold moral significance. A universe of computers is not superior to a universe of atoms without something experiencing those abstractions and giving them meaning.
jorvi 4y ago
You should watch a ‘scale of the universe’ video. The idea of a human-centric universe is quite humorous.
thinkmcfly 4y ago
I don't see much wrong with a peaceful winding down of the population.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Agreed IFF We start with the ‘bloodlines’.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  This is horrific - what mechanism would you use to accomplish it?
lost_tourist 4y ago
I think a lot of modern "philosophers" and "religious" people like to think of humans as nothing special and that likely everything would be much better off if we returned to seeking shelter in caves and under lean-tos. I mean it's all relative, but I've only seen a very few ever actually turn their back on modern conveniences or live an ascetic/minimal life.

phoe-krk 4y ago

I think the mistake is to consider "human" something separate from the rest of the world as opposed to a more holistic point of view. The fact that we have a somewhat complicated mind capable of abstract thinking doesn't mean we're anything more than bacteria on the grander scale. The fact that our species has developed all over Earth and became its self-appointed "stewards" doesn't mean that a well-placed asteroid can't turn our "stewardship" into a futile battle for survival.

civilized 4y ago
From my perspective, you're not identifying an intellectual mistake made by others. You're talking about a difference of values. You don't highly value people being around to observe and participate in the universe, while others care a lot more about this.
true_religion 4y ago
What you are saying now is very different from the calculus required to determine if humanities extinction is a catastrophe. It is one by our point of view, and most humans argue that (a) our point of view is the only one that matters since in the grand aspect we haven’t found any other intelligent point of view, though we theorize they may exist and (b) judging the pain of death as catastrophe is a personal choice, even on Earth we allow people to call the death of their loved ones catastrophic even if other humans continue to go on living blithely unaware of their pain.
Shorel 4y ago
Dismissal of the result of some billion years of constant adaptation and struggle is also a mistake, IMO. We are so much more than bacteria, and until proved otherwise, so far we are the smartest beings in the universe. We will at some point, stop existing as a species. This doesn't mean everything we do is meaningless. Eternity and infinity intelligence are not the only measures we can choose to value ourselves, in fact, they smell too much like religion for my personal taste. What we have is more struggle, more problems to overcome, more challenges and the possibility of succeeding, the possibility of leaving the solar system before the sun dies and kills the earth. Step by step. Value the small victories. We have reached very far, so far.
dinkumthinkum 4y ago
There is so much of this downplaying of humans. We are certainly more than bacteria are any reasonable “scale”. We can create transmissions that reach other galaxies, we can split atoms, and even consider ourselves to be equal to bacteria because we conjure vague notions of incomprehensible advanced species. It’s just a very odd kind of self-deprecation.

__s 4y ago

I think any intelligence persisting forward in time is success. If ai takes over it'll have a much easier time traveling at speed of light. & patience too. Humanity won't need to be slaughtered; microplastics in our balls will make us sterile enough

Stupulous 4y ago
I would think consciousness, rather than intelligence, is the important component that should persist irrespective of humanity. Intelligence, curiousity, and creativity are important too, but on their own they don't hold moral significance. A universe of computers is not superior to a universe of atoms without something experiencing those abstractions and giving them meaning.

jorvi 4y ago

You should watch a ‘scale of the universe’ video. The idea of a human-centric universe is quite humorous.

thinkmcfly 4y ago

I don't see much wrong with a peaceful winding down of the population.

eternalban 4y ago
Agreed IFF We start with the ‘bloodlines’.
thegrimmest 4y ago
This is horrific - what mechanism would you use to accomplish it?

lost_tourist 4y ago

I think a lot of modern "philosophers" and "religious" people like to think of humans as nothing special and that likely everything would be much better off if we returned to seeking shelter in caves and under lean-tos. I mean it's all relative, but I've only seen a very few ever actually turn their back on modern conveniences or live an ascetic/minimal life.