3 ms·
Less than a year ago I made this exact statement in a thread on hn where a bunch of people were talking about how humans are like a virus on the planet. I poin
by JPKab 4y ago
Less than a year ago I made this exact statement in a thread on hn where a bunch of people were talking about how humans are like a virus on the planet.
I pointed out that the only thing in the history of the earth that can stop the inevitable coming mass extinction from the occasional asteroid are the hairless fire apes that have learned how to harness chemicals to create rockets.
The responses were essentially calling me crazy and saying it was fantasy.
The repayment is simply not dulled at all. Virtually every medium sized or larger species on the planet gets wiped out on the occasional large asteroid hit. A percentage of them going extinct is a small price to pay for the majority staying alive when the asteroid doesn't hit because we redirected it. For the first time in its history the earth now has hairless fire apes to act as an immune system against asteroids.
- the_af 4y agoBut is this a good thing though? (Excluding our own bias in that we want mankind to continue to exist) Mass extinction events seem to work as a big reset button, dislodging dominant species that prevented others to succeed, rise and take more dominant roles. So a mass extinction that is bad for some species may become a huge opportunity for others. There is no inherent "good" value (excluding anthropocentric reasons) to preventing mass extinctions.
- wonderwonder 4y agoThe concept of good and bad only exists because humanity created it. So humanity surviving at the expense of all else is good because we will it to be so. We are just an animal species that wants to survive and spread like all other animal species just as Darwinism made us. We are just pretty good at it. Humanity has the ability to survive the upcoming final extinction event that the sun will cause and spread life in the galaxy. I would say this is good, as without us doing this life itself dies.
- the_af 4y agoThat's the anthropocentric argument, that the original comment we're discussing specifically excluded...
- worldsayshi 4y agoYeah, stopping mass extinction events might not be inherently "good". But other actions can be "inherently" good. I think any action that allows life to exist where it wouldn't have existed otherwise, in time or space, is the closest we can get to inherent good.
- the_af 4y agoI understand, but excluding preference for our own existence -- and that of species we find pleasing or familiar -- wouldn't preventing a mass extinction event prevent the rise of new species? Every mass extinction so far became an opportunity for new species to rise and spread, of course to the detriment of many others. So why would you consider us to be "helping", if we exclude anthropocentric arguments? Maybe we are actually doing harm by preventing the rise of some new interesting species.