4 ms·

Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.

by giraffe_lady 2y ago

goatlover 2y ago
Or we beat grabby aliens to the punch.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    Or you could recognize the possibility that space might be treated as territory to be developed by more advanced intelligences that we could run into someday. There is a paper as a solution to the Fermi Paradox and YT videos under the term "grabby aliens".
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      I recognize the possibility I just don't accept it as a justification for a rerun of manifest destiny.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- itishappy 2y ago
  Humanity as the great filter. A dark version of The Culture. Solid sci-fi premise!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life. Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.
- vacuity 2y ago
  Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.) > we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life? Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conquer https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conqu...
    - vacuity 2y ago
      > Conquest means conquering. I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved. > Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point. You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.

Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.

goatlover 2y ago

Or we beat grabby aliens to the punch.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.
- goatlover 2y ago
  Or you could recognize the possibility that space might be treated as territory to be developed by more advanced intelligences that we could run into someday. There is a paper as a solution to the Fermi Paradox and YT videos under the term "grabby aliens".
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    I recognize the possibility I just don't accept it as a justification for a rerun of manifest destiny.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
itishappy 2y ago
Humanity as the great filter. A dark version of The Culture. Solid sci-fi premise!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life. Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.

vacuity 2y ago
Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.) > we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life? Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conquer https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conqu...
  - vacuity 2y ago
    > Conquest means conquering. I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved. > Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point. You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.