3 ms·
David Hume identified the useful distinction between is and ought. For most of my life I've adhered to this idea - however I've come to believe, against my own
by javajosh 4y ago
David Hume identified the useful distinction between is and ought.
For most of my life I've adhered to this idea - however I've come to believe, against my own protests, that the universe does, in fact, embed something like a moral code. Or more like a challenge. When we look upon it, we see a vast, empty thing, devoid of any evidence of life. The biosphere of Earth is the most precious "substance" that exists because it is the most unique. It is also the only place where this discussion can take place, since the rest of the universe is (apparently) rather dead.
So, I don't think the universe has anything to say about hat sizes or personal sexual proclivities (and indeed wrt sex the universe seems to wear its freak flag proudly given that the life-cycles of many critters involves...questionable activity). But it does say that surviving is very hard - It is quite difficult to escape a gravity well, and many OOM harder to get to another system fast enough that your craft and crew doesn't die of old age.
(I've come to believe too that there is a positive side to this setup: if it were easier to move around, there would be horrible chaos as so cheerily depicted in assorted space opera novels. It would be colonialism writ large, victimizing trillions instead of millions. And most likely humans would be the exploited and not the exploiters, not that it matters.)
What's interesting though is that the problem of spreading life beyond earth seems extremely hard-- but its not theoretically impossible. It's going to take time, which means humans need to find a stable space in which to dwell for a long time while we build planet-spanning particle colliders, or whatever else we need to do to figure out how to send vehicles to other stars. Creativity exists in tension with stability, which is an interesting place to end a conversation about how to pass The Great Filter.
- mrangle 4y agoThe theory of spreading Life Beyond Earth has obstacles that I've never seen it adequately approach. It suffers from worldwide popularized optimism to which it early succumbs without a proper fight. That it doesn't have to, much like other nationalistic fictions, indicates its low possibility. It is a theory that claims legitimacy without ever stepping into the ring. Which is the proper positioning for meatbags that can't take the pummeling of the infinite gorilla of space. Or more precisely, who can't physically survive the trauma of being separated from their Mother(Earth). People get all of the space travel that they require from the next Chris Pine Star Trek film. That's psychologically enough for the world. The gap between now and survivable manned travel to Mars is so large that no one can see the opposite shore. An educated wager might be that this is because it doesn't exist. But again, one has to abandon addiction to popular optimism to start down the road of analyzing why. Start with the simple factor of our circadian rhythm that is inseparably tied to the Earth's clock that is uniquely a product of the relationship of this specific Earth to our specific Sun. Don't include how the Earth's gravity or magnetic field may play parts, as that's too advanced as of yet. Before we would get to lethal space radiation, we have to figure out how to survive even in otherwise perfectly safe synthetic conditions. It's unclear to the point that we haven't started the discussion. I want to meet the man who is going to have the vaccine, ahead of time and before a truly apocalyptic pandemic, for space infections picked up from space-victims of space-colonialism by the eternal oppressors of Earth (hard to accomplish that much oppression in infinite space but ok) . The Universe has plenty to say about both hat sizes and sex.
- realjhol 4y agoIt's all just Whig History. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
- javajosh 4y ago>It suffers from worldwide popularized optimism Yes, that is certainly true. It bothers me that I can't explain why Asimov, for example, didn't refrain from silly FTL fantasy when he knew better, even then. I pity the science-optimists who claim victory and hope with every advance, but then ignore the constraints who's reality undergird every advance (esp relativity, in this case). >That's psychologically enough for the world The universe, or God if you prefer, has thrown down the gauntlets and left us in a default dead state. This is urgent on a long time scale. Fantasy calling itself "science fiction" does damage to our collective physical intuitions, and our intuitions about the future. (A fact which has not gone unnoticed by those with the means to fund such entertainments). But in truth I don't care about what the world wants, I care about keeping it alive long enough to become multi-system. Then, sure, entertain yourself to death if you want. It's only one world, at that point. The last few years have greatly revised (downward) my estimate of modern human knowledge of science, and reality in general. Until then, yeah, if NASA were to come out strongly in favor of protecting our collective scientific minds by requiring virtually all "science fiction" to be relabeled "fantasy", I'd be for it. Why do we assume that children must be protected from sexual imagery but warping their physical intuition is fine?? >The Universe has plenty to say about both hat sizes and sex. Not at the scale I'm talking about. The nihilistic, self-amusing jokes of the cynic who lies to himself and says he doesn't care, that he is courageously indifferent, show fear. Total, abject fear.
- realjhol 4y ago> For most of my life I've adhered to this idea - however I've come to believe, against my own protests, that the universe does, in fact, embed something like a moral code So what if it does? > So, I don't think the universe has anything to say about [..] personal sexual proclivities Wow - who on earth would have believed that your pre-supposed moral sensibilities would both be completely correct and even coded into the fabric of the universe itself. If the universe does in fact have a moral code as you suggest, there is every reason to think it might speak against anti-social behaviours and codes of sexual ethics that inhibit family formation and reproduction.
- javajosh 4y agoI feel like if you were on the ISS and the crew stopped to admire a particularly beautiful view of Earth, you'd be the one to start complaining about...something. Whether or not your complaint is legitimate, the fact that you'd pick this moment, this thread, to complain about your favorite little topic, means you've missed the point entirely. (This is the most common failure mode among humans, so you're in good company).
- realjhol 4y agoI'm not advancing a view about sexual ethics, I'm just amused that you believe that your own pre-conceived notions about sexual ethics must agree with a universal moral order which is also a fact of nature. How convenient. > I feel like if you were on the ISS and the crew stopped to admire a particularly beautiful view of Earth, you'd be the one to start complaining about...something Again this is just your prejudice. You dont know anything about me.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoYou take a statement about a total absence of notions, concieved at any time, and call it preconcieved notions and prejudice. I call projection.
- realjhol 4y ago