3 ms·

> mass extinction events seem to be really good at creating space for new forms of life to develop To what end? Life on this planet has about a 1 billion year

> mass extinction events seem to be really good at creating space for new forms of life to develop To what end? Life on this planet has about a 1 billion year run way left since the sun will start to expand and eventually strip away Earth's atmosphere and finally swallow the planet whole. It's taken 3.7 billion years to get to this point and most of the "interesting" evolution has occurred in only the last 500 million years. So it is true that the next 500 million should be even more diverse. However unless another intelligent life form develops the point is moot. No matter how smart a dolphin, or raven, or chimp, or octopus is... if it can't escape this rock then it's not much different from a bacteria colony that dies out when it's food source is exhausted. Evolution is random. For all we know an even more intelligent form of life will develop than us humans but on the other hand it's possible that for the next billion years we are the only fluke in the evolutionary timeline and nothing else will develop. Finally there's a third option that is within the grasp of humanity which is to say we can branch off Earth's tree of life and take it into space while leaving Earth to develop as it will.

Waterluvian 4y ago
A billion years seems to be a LOT of time for many mass extinction events. I think your argument leans on “interesting” a lot, which has its basis in our narcissism. Again, it only feels important that the life be “interesting” if we’re here to care. Just to restate: I’m not saying we don’t act selfishly. I sure would. Let’s just not pretend we’re being altruistic.
- hparadiz 4y ago
  The vast majority of evolutionary complexity has evolved in the past 500 million years. That's what I meant by "interesting". Things like flowering plants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our branch of the tree of life. So I'm not sure where your accusation of narcissism is coming from. For all I know a flowering plant will develop a brain and become sentient in the next 200 million years.
  - lovemenot 4y ago
    I am not the person you responded to, but I generally agree with them. I guess they prefer to take an extreme Darwinian view. Since complexity is not the goal of life, merely a side-effect, there is no life on this planet that is more advanced than any other. Assuming a single abiogenesis event, all extant life has been evolving for approximately 3.8B years. We may choose to think of brains, and our human brains in particular, as the bees-knees. Objectively, they are not though. Just one of many successful branches of the tree of life.
    - hparadiz 4y ago
      > We may choose to think of brains, and our human brains in particular, as the bees-knees. Objectively, they are not though. Just one of many successful branches of the tree of life. Consider that our brains are the only organ on the planet that is able to understand the concept of life, reason about itself and all other life around it, understand the concept of evolution, and even conceptualize time billion of years into the past and future. Not all life on this planet has evolved even though it had the potential to do so. If we attribute "advanced" as evolutionary steps rather than the inaction of simply existing then clearly we are more advanced than a bacteria. However I will concede your point for other multicellular life.
      - lovemenot 4y ago
        >> Consider that our brains are the only organ on the planet that is able to understand the concept of life, reason about itself and all other life around it, understand the concept of evolution, and even conceptualize time billion of years into the past and future. Here is where words like "narcissism" tend to land. It isn't personal against yourself, so please don't take offence. It is a philosophical viewpoint that is often stated, but appears to lack evidence. I don't have any counter evidence, but I strongly suspect it to be factually incorrect. And I believe the burden of proof is on those making this claim. Further, even if we allow the above claim to pertain, this position makes the strong assertion that the very qualities that modern humans are uniquely superior in, are the very things that must be held uniquely special. To some of us, this just seems circular and too convenient. Is it more likely that humans hold such characteristics to be the epitome of success because there is some objective model of success to which we alone conform (e.g. conceptualisation)? Or because it merely suits us to do so? I believe the latter, though you may disagree.
Nihilartikel 4y ago
One could philosophize about whether an earth without humans would be better or worse.. but there is no good or bad in the known universe that exists outside of the shared fever dream of human cognition. In that sense how is one configuration of motile matter any different from its potential successors?

Waterluvian 4y ago

A billion years seems to be a LOT of time for many mass extinction events. I think your argument leans on “interesting” a lot, which has its basis in our narcissism. Again, it only feels important that the life be “interesting” if we’re here to care. Just to restate: I’m not saying we don’t act selfishly. I sure would. Let’s just not pretend we’re being altruistic.

hparadiz 4y ago
The vast majority of evolutionary complexity has evolved in the past 500 million years. That's what I meant by "interesting". Things like flowering plants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our branch of the tree of life. So I'm not sure where your accusation of narcissism is coming from. For all I know a flowering plant will develop a brain and become sentient in the next 200 million years.
- lovemenot 4y ago
  I am not the person you responded to, but I generally agree with them. I guess they prefer to take an extreme Darwinian view. Since complexity is not the goal of life, merely a side-effect, there is no life on this planet that is more advanced than any other. Assuming a single abiogenesis event, all extant life has been evolving for approximately 3.8B years. We may choose to think of brains, and our human brains in particular, as the bees-knees. Objectively, they are not though. Just one of many successful branches of the tree of life.
  - hparadiz 4y ago
    > We may choose to think of brains, and our human brains in particular, as the bees-knees. Objectively, they are not though. Just one of many successful branches of the tree of life. Consider that our brains are the only organ on the planet that is able to understand the concept of life, reason about itself and all other life around it, understand the concept of evolution, and even conceptualize time billion of years into the past and future. Not all life on this planet has evolved even though it had the potential to do so. If we attribute "advanced" as evolutionary steps rather than the inaction of simply existing then clearly we are more advanced than a bacteria. However I will concede your point for other multicellular life.
    - lovemenot 4y ago
      >> Consider that our brains are the only organ on the planet that is able to understand the concept of life, reason about itself and all other life around it, understand the concept of evolution, and even conceptualize time billion of years into the past and future. Here is where words like "narcissism" tend to land. It isn't personal against yourself, so please don't take offence. It is a philosophical viewpoint that is often stated, but appears to lack evidence. I don't have any counter evidence, but I strongly suspect it to be factually incorrect. And I believe the burden of proof is on those making this claim. Further, even if we allow the above claim to pertain, this position makes the strong assertion that the very qualities that modern humans are uniquely superior in, are the very things that must be held uniquely special. To some of us, this just seems circular and too convenient. Is it more likely that humans hold such characteristics to be the epitome of success because there is some objective model of success to which we alone conform (e.g. conceptualisation)? Or because it merely suits us to do so? I believe the latter, though you may disagree.

Nihilartikel 4y ago

One could philosophize about whether an earth without humans would be better or worse.. but there is no good or bad in the known universe that exists outside of the shared fever dream of human cognition. In that sense how is one configuration of motile matter any different from its potential successors?