Definitely leaning towards Molgrips position here. It cheered me to read that post 🙂
If though we're just going to resort to pithy one liners (pretty much my capability limits):
It's what we make of it.
Don’t care about humans dying out, I do care about the planet and everything else that lives upon it that our selfish actions are affecting.
This, exactly.
I always believed that there's intelligent* life elsewhere in the universe until Prof Cox explained why It's highly unlikely. So It appears we are 'It'. If you think about the size of the known universe & the fact that we are the only planet with what we've got, I reckon that's a good enough reason to save it.
* I use the term loosely seeing as we're screwing up the planet we live on.
I was about to (inarticulately) express pretty much what Esselgruntfuttock has posted above. Is there really another Botticelli Birth of Venus (or whatever) somewhere out there the universe?
We are all aware of climate change and impact, yet have a very ‘someone else’s problem’ approach to it.
Well, back in the heady days of the 2019 during the cultural shift peaking bottoming-out (?) with the Orange Mantomime US President, nearly 4 in 10 US citizens were still saying that human activity was at least partly responsible.
However, ‘partly responsible’ is not a resounding commitment to tackling the problem, whichever way one dices it. I firmly believe that denial/disbelief was on the rise at a critical juncture.
It may be swinging the other way, slowly but too little too late by all accounts.
The poll released Friday found that 31 percent of Americans feel climate change is not a serious problem, compared to 36 percent who felt similarly in 2015.
I think the evidence suggests that the population will peak in 2064 and then decline rather quickly anyway.
I think this is probably going to happen too. In the West, we have gained leisure opportunities and the desire to deviate from traditional social conditioning, which results in many of us having fulfilling lives in our own right and not feeling the need to procreate. Consequently our birth rate is falling. There's no reason to assume that this won't happen in the rest of the world eventually, when they acquire the same opportunities. But that's going to put a hell of a load on natural resources unless we figure out a way to do it better.
As for me personally, I do want to see humanity persist. Not because it has intrinsic value, but because I just like it. Yes, there are loads of arseholes in the human world, with base selfish instincts, but there's loads of amazing stuff as well.
We're very likely to be unique in the universe but so is every other life form on the Earth so maybe not a water tight case.
I also have an inkling that we're an evolutionary dead end, just we have not ran our course yet.
The human race isn't going to survive. And the human race isn't the only civilisation that will live or has lived either imo.
So there's no imperative beyond the personal desires of your own species to multiply and go forth. That'll end either in a billion years when the sun makes the place too hostile to live on or before when some other event happens. Guess we might be comes a space fairing civilisation but i doubt we'll get beyond the solar system really.
My betting is there'll be a few different civilisations beyond us on this planet. We aren't the only sentient beings on the planet, and we aren't the only self aware beings either. So more will come behind us a billion years is a long time. Even just look at the last 500million, there's been 5 mass extinctions events. more will come and life will continue to develop.
Then you are looking beyond the planet and solar system. Have a look up at the sky, see all they stars. Every one of them has a planetary system around it. And even at thqt every one you can see is only a max of 4000 lightyears away. The galaxy is 100,000 light years across, with 100 thousand million stars(ie plantery systems).
There's also a blob you can faintly see with the naked eye, that's 250million light years away, it's called Andromeda and is even bigger than our galaxy. There's at least 125 billion galaxies in the observable universe, who knows what's beyond that.
So, aye, we aren't alone. 😆
There's no real imperative beyond our own desires to exist.
didnthurt
Full Member
We’re very likely to be unique in the universe
Baffles me how anyone can come to this conclusion.
Baffles me how anyone can come to this conclusion.
Prof Brian Cox explained why, as I already said.
I believe him. I was previously a big believer in 'aliens/UFO's' now I'm not so sure.
However. As someone said (Isaac Asimov or someone) 'space is not only queerer than you think, It's queerer than you CAN think'
Anyway, we're Fubared.
Why do people care about the planet without humans? The planet under the custodiananship of 'mother nature' has done nothing but trying to kill us and nature at every opportunity. Why put the 'ethics' of the planet above the 'ethics' of humans? the planet has proved oner its 4.5 billion year history to be more destructive and capable of mass extinction events than humans can ever be despite our best efforts. Mother Nature is an 'evil' force if ever there was a non-religious definition if evil. Moreso than humans in their 200k year history at best can ever demonstrate. The future of planet earth is far better off in the Hands of humans than Mother Nature...whatever Mother Nature is.
esselgruntfuttock
Free Member
Baffles me how anyone can come to this conclusion.Prof Brian Cox explained why, as I already said.
I believe him. I was previously a big believer in ‘aliens/UFO’s’ now I’m not so sure.However. As someone said (Isaac Asimov or someone) ‘space is not only queerer than you think, It’s queerer than you CAN think’
Anyway, we’re Fubared.
Cox is great and I love him, but he's not the definitive source, and is full of ifs buts and maybe's when he discuss's the subject.
If you think about the size of the known universe & the fact that we are the only planet with what we’ve got,
We don't know that. So it's not a fact, purely opinion.
I personally doubt we'll ever communicate with another civilisation, the distances and timeslines are too great, and I'm not sure if we'll even have the intelligence to even recognise it when we see it, but the universe is vast and will continue on for a long long time, we are just at the beginning of it. The potentially habitable timeline of the universe is a magnitude more than the 500 million to a billion year max that we'll potentially exist.
Seems a bit ego centric to think that we are the pinnacle of existence in a universe that will last trillions upon trillion of years beyond us. Solar systems, Galaxies and everything within them are basically chemistry factories, even if life happens only once per galaxy, that's still 125billion potential civilisations in the known universe alone, and we'll never see a hint of them.
Mother Nature is an ‘evil’ force if ever there was a non-religious definition if evil.
That's some grade A crack you're smoking there, sunshine.
Thanks thestabiliser. Care to add anything to the debate? any evidence to the contrary?
No, you win.
Well there are no winners in this debate. Life is cruel and a struggle, that has been the history of life on earth no matter how you cut it.
The future of planet earth is far better off in the Hands of humans than Mother Nature…
Wow, so blatantly sexist and misogynist.
The term “Mother Nature” reinforces the idea that both women and nature should be subjugated
space is not only queerer than you think, It’s queerer than you CAN think’
I'll let someone else deal with that one.
Let's give 'evil' mother nature a kicking and show her who's boss.
Also as i mentioned, I don't even think we are the last word on intelligence on this planet never mind the galaxy. Look at the multitudes of different species around us, they haven't stopped evolving.
In planetary terms evolution still has a long long way to run. We were only just starting to develop from apes 2 million years ago. What will things look in in another 2million years? What way will other animals will evolve? What'll be around in 65 million years?
I mean the change from the dinosaurs to us was pretty dramatic(even the change from the beginning of the dinosaurs 250million years ago to their end was quite dramatic too), I reckon there'll be a few more dramatic changes. Getting all planet of the apes here, but ye get what I mean i'm sure. 😆
I reckon we crack on as long as we can, that's the point and our driving force really, but we are most definitely a finite species and unlikely to be the final say on this planet never mind the galaxy or the universe.
OK to be completely compliant with current parlance insert the term 'mother nature' with whatever term that suits your personal acceptance - I don't give a shit. It doesn't change the point I was making.
Language and words after all are but mere tools to infer whatever meaning we are tying to communicate. Its the meaning behind the words that matter and not the words themselves. But I'm blessed with a sufficient enough vocabulary to get my point across by whatever choice of 'acceptable' language of the current fashion.
I haven’t actually given this that much thought.
But what I do know is that we’ve been here for a tiny fraction of time and we’ll die out in a tiny fraction of time.
I doubt we’ll have a massive effect in the end picture
We should leave some spaceships full of cryogenically frozen humans floating around for the aliens to find, eventually. So they can probe the bodies and bring them back to life for a theme park attraction, or something.
insert the term ‘mother nature’ with whatever term that suits your personal acceptance
Well "Father Nature" would be more appropriate to reflect its repressive character.
But I think "Person Nature" would probably be more sensible.
Although I'm not entirely happy with the "son" in person.
Look at the multitudes of different species around us, they haven’t stopped evolving.
TRUE....BUT.....the difference is that evolution requires species to evolve to suit their environment - they evolved to benefit form their environmental conditions - survival of the fittest and all that.
The big difference with us is that we have the brain power and technological capability to change our environment to suit us therefore stopping in its tracks survival of the fittest and the process of evolution. We modify our environment to suit us rather than our environment modifying us to suit it. Therefore evolution by natural selection has been stopped in its tracks. We rule. The question is have we got the courage and conviction to rule?
Well “Father Nature” would be more appropriate to reflect its repressive character.
I'd be happy with just the term 'Nature' as asesexual as it is. its not something I've ever attributed a sex to...its just something that IS. Repressive or not, it just happens wether we like it or not.
wobbliscott
Full Member
We rule. The question is have we got the courage and conviction to rule?
We rule till we or something destroys us. Then something else comes along.
I'm not sure people living in less developed (and well developed!) countries who are very much at the mercy of nature's extremes would agree with the idea that we have the capability to modify our environment to suit us.
We can't prevent catastrophic floods, fires, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, heatwaves etc from killing thousands the world over. I don't think we're in charge. It may feel like that from the relative safety of the UK where we are largely immune to very extremes of nature.
Well yes...but we can only control what we can control so the best we can hope for is that we make sensible decisions ad not that we've mastered 'mother nature'. This is where we need a cool head and considered and intelligent choices as opposed to emotionally driven responses that has dominated in the last 1000 years of human decisions. We have the opportunity to let considered and demonstrated science guide us unlike our ancestors. lets take emotion out of the most important decisions that face us right now. Its intelligent and considered thought that has to prevail. BE MORE VULCAN!
’m not sure people living in less developed countries who are very much at the mercy of nature’s extremes would agree with the idea that we have the capability to modify our environment to suit us.
Talk to the Dutch. Just a question of money....and that is something we can control.
Repressive or not, it just happens wether we like it or not.
Oh that old chestnut....... it's "natural"
wobbliscott
Full Member
Well yes…but we can only control what we can control so the best we can hope for is that we make sensible decisions ad not that we’ve mastered ‘mother nature’.
We is an interesting term here tbh, cause the term we is transient.
Put it this way, what connection do you feel to our human ancestors from 2 million year ago, ie our Ape ancestors? I feel no affinity or connection to them particularly.
In 2 million years from now they are likely to look back at us similarly i guess. Cause they'll likely to be quite different from what we are today.
in that sense, even evolution is against the concept of we, as in the here and now.
Even in a shorter time scale, 10 to 15 generations from now, your specific genetic influence all but disappears.
So ultimately the driving force is solely about making sure the next or next few generations survive. Beyond that really it takes on a life of its own.
TRUE….BUT…..the difference is that evolution requires species to evolve to suit their environment
How are your gills today? Bit dry?
Of all the interesting responses I’ve found wobbliscott’s to be the most challenging (and interesting).
On one hand they believe in ‘evil’, yet doesn’t that also require a belief in ‘good’? So how could nature according to @wobbliscott ever be ‘good’? What would ‘good’ nature look like?
It is claimed (and I believe it) that what sets humans apart from other life on earth is our capacity for imagining, for recording, our ability towards co-operating with strangers at a distance, and maybe most of all for our believing fictions of our own making.
whereas all other animals live in an objective world of rivers, trees and lions, we humans live in dual world. Yes, there are rivers, trees and lions in our world. But on top of that objective reality, we have constructed a second layer of make-believe reality, comprising fictional entities such as the European Union, God, the dollar and human rights.
And as time passes, these fictional entities have become ever more powerful, so that today they are the most powerful forces in the world. The very survival of trees, rivers and animals now depends on the wishes and decisions of fictional entities such as the United States and the World Bank — entities that exist only in our own imagination.
Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind
Now wobbliscott has me attempting to imagine what kind of ‘nature’ would be ‘good’? Because I currently see nature as mostly indifferent; ie a combination of indifferent events in an indifferent galaxy in an indifferent universe. The piper is entropy and we all have to pay the piper because A = A therefore A.
So if one defines ‘evil’ as ‘indifference’, then how would one define ‘good’? Compassion? Eternal life? A ‘caring’ universe? Wouldn’t that be some kind of God?
*’Nature’ is undefined. Are we part of nature or not?
So how could nature according to @wobbliscott ever be ‘good’?
Well you could define 'good' as according to nature, as has been attempted in the past. But that has rather ugly implications, doesn't it? So perhaps that can inform how we think about the difference between nature and humans?
The term “Mother Nature” reinforces the idea that both women and nature should be subjugated
I think you posted this tongue in cheek but it's tosh. The reason it's called 'mother' nature is that it's recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life, which has been understood for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
*’Nature’ is undefined. Are we part of nature or not?
Depends on context. In some, nature is defined as that which is not human.
I always believed the term Mother Nature was used as it represents life giving and fertility such as a female, seems everything nowadays upsets someone. Personally, I will still use the term Mother Nature.
As intelligent as we may be to make stuff such as computers, cars etc.. we are generally far too stupid and selfish..
It doesn't really take that much for a society to implode. Look what happens when we have an apparent fuel / toilet roll shortage.
When climate change really starts to bite us in the not too distant future it's all going to go a bit distopian..
It’s funny watching a bunch of atheists arguing about the meaning of human existence 🙂
Always worth looking at this as an example of mother nature at her worst .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event . Decent overview but underplays just how unpleasant most of the earth's land surface after ambient temperature elevated to 35-40C
Climata change that we see won't kill all life on earth, and no more than an ice age would, but it will make life very unpleasant for billions of people, including those countries we call 1st world
wobbliscott
Full MemberThe big difference with us is that we have the brain power and technological capability to change our environment to suit us therefore stopping in its tracks survival of the fittest and the process of evolution.
Specifically on this, we don't have that power at all, as I eluded, over time evolution will still continue and it'll change us, the human race isn't a constant. It's a bit short sighted and I think egomaniacal to believe we are somehow beyond nature I think.
We are nature, imo. And we'll soon know that when a meteor, volcano or some other natural event decides to put us in our place. We can quite easily get knocked off our position of power tomorrow.
Being the king of the jungle doesn't mean you stay there forever, no matter how powerful you perceive yourself to be. A mistake many have made I'd suggest.
It’s funny watching a bunch of atheists arguing about the meaning of human existence 🙂
*must not feed*
I find the concept nature being good or evil strange too. There's not really a morality it in, it's another thing that just is, something that is there to keep mixing things up so they don't stay the same.
Nature is really just the force to mix up the chemistry of the universe and see what comes out of it. This mixing process determines that everything has limited time imo.
Enjoy it while it lasts. 😆
Depends on context. In some, nature is defined as that which is not human.
Of course, I should have made it clear I was asking/referring to the context of wobbliscott’s argument, as his characterization of nature as ‘evil’ seemed to exclude himself/humanity. But if it included us, then what is ‘good’? Because otherwise how is ‘evil’ characterised without ‘good’?
ie did wobbliscott just invent or discover God? And did you (Molgrips) conceive of humans as in someway the divine arbiters of what is ‘good and bad/better or worse’
I’ll state my case in that I tend in matters of assessment to differentiate between objective and subjective. ie if humans were to disappear then it would be objectively better in the medium/long-term for global biodiversity, background extinction-rate, pollution and animal-suffering.
And no, that family of rats/badgers/orangutans/dolphins/corals whom/whatever will not likely have the capacity to sit around a fire and tell generational stories to each othe about what it was like before when humans were here, and what it it now is like after they were gone, or when it’s like that they’ve gone.
But they and the biosphere are better off *objectively*. They’re just not better off *subjectively* from a certain human point of view.
But how bloody conceited and shortsighted of us humans to think that ‘better off’ for other species/environments only ever occurs if we say that it does?
Is this a nihilism thread? This is always good for perspective..
*correction
what it was like before when humans were here, and what it now is like after they are were gone
(Note to self: 15 min edit window vs dictating vs making toast, choose one or the other you’re not equipped for both)
must not feed
Am I a troll for even mentioning religion? I just think this would be a very different discussion if it were being had by a bunch of believers in various faiths and it’s interesting how taking a god out of the equation makes it quite hard to ascribe any special meaning to human existence.
Am I a troll for even mentioning religion?
No, but what you said and the way that you said it was trollish (or came over that way).
That’s all.
I wrote a long answer which roughly summarised would be: the OPs question and caveats are as stupid and flawed as this website for its tendency to crash the browser.
If it’s aiming to justify living life to the max rather than worrying about the future in some climate change way - climate change does and will affect those alive today, don’t think of it as saving the human race forever - it’s protecting humans who are alive during your own lifetime.
@p7eaven you should join @SaxonRider and I on bike rides, this is the kind of thing we talk about.
And did you (Molgrips) conceive of humans as in someway the divine arbiters of what is ‘good and bad/better or worse’
Not divine, no, the opposite. We are and can only be self-referential, so humans are the only ones who can decide what's good and what's not, of course.
how taking a god out of the equation makes it quite hard to ascribe any special meaning to human existence
I don't think it's hard at all - we can give it any meaning we like. I choose my own meaning which is to have a good time and help others have a good time, without doing too many things that people don't like.
But they and the biosphere are better off *objectively*.
Are they though? Who's to decide that increased biodiversity is 'good'? Humans have decided that it is, but that's only relatively recent, and is fairly sentimental. Not that sentiments aren't important - in my view they're all we really have.
Prof Brian Cox explained why, as I already said.
Have you got a source for that? I'd love to read the explanation.
Wouldn't it be cool to have an artificial intelligence evolution simulation where we can set the conditions for a specific species to evolve intelligence to match our own and/or beyond? Or of course simulate where our own evolution might go.
What if we swapped humans with Giraffes?
Or what would happen to livestock, and all the other animals we've been interfering with the breeding of for thousands of years.
I think you posted this tongue in cheek but it’s tosh. The reason it’s called ‘mother’ nature is that it’s recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life, which has been understood for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.
It wasn't me that said it, I was quoting Sarah Milner-Barry in my link :
And as she points out :
The idea that the Earth is a parental figure because it sustains us is a comforting analogy. But what we do not learn as children, and are often not taught as we age, is the harm caused by gendered and sexist language that reinforce gender stereotypes and hierarchies.
So your comment : "recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life" simply reinforces gender stereotypes and hierarchies. Quite shameful really.
So your comment : “recognising that women are the creators and nurturers of life” simply reinforces gender stereotypes and hierarchies. Quite shameful really.
I don't see it that way. We don't refer to women as 'natures' it's the other way round. The phrase is portraying nature, an inert concept, as a mother therefore projecting ideas from women, not onto them.
The number of things that are actively oppressing women and forcing gender stereotypes into them is absolute enormous; the idea of 'mother nature' is very far down the list.
You tell that to Sarah Milner-Barry.
What's Brian Cox's rationale for there being no other intelligent life, anywher? I suppose it's the short time intelligent human life has existed on earth compared to 4,6 billion years and a bit of extrapolation? You can't really do that as you don't know how long intelligence will persist in some shape or form, despite a few wars along the way.
I recall an interesting articly on if there had been a previous intelligent society on earth would we know about it. The fossil record is patchy, and concentrated on where people don't live - if we all died tomorrow in 200 million years out principal exidence for widespread existance would be weird geochemical signatures.
Article on overpopulation, or rather overconsumption worth reading
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/12/is-our-planet-overpopulated-we-ask-the-expert
Simply asking poor people in other countries to stop breeding seems less important than getting heavy consumers in the west to behave. UNless you want to medical science to stop improving
if we all died tomorrow in 200 million years out principal exidence for widespread existance would be weird geochemical signatures.
Depends how we died. If we all just fell down right now there'd be a pretty thick layer of fossils that some future palaeontologists would find straight away.
Simply asking poor people in other countries to stop breeding seems less important than getting heavy consumers in the west to behave.
It's a harder sell. But in any case, I think that they will stop on their own just as we have.
For how many trillions of planets, there is the universe to say were the only ones with life is ridiculous.
Have you got a source for that? I’d love to read the explanation.
I don't but I think it was on one of the programmes in his last series, not that long ago IIR.
I was really disappointed cos when I look up at the gazillions of stars I always used to think, 'we simply can not be alone in the universe'.
He never said we weren't the only ones but explained how It's more likely that we are.
Intruiging.
I love Prof Cox me.
Other astronomers disagree with that position, I think.
Might be this one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000wnk3/brian-coxs-adventures-in-space-and-time-series-1-2-aliens-are-we-alone
I REALLY want there to be some other life in the whole universe!
I quite enjoy the fact the human race is going to self destruct, so many nobheads are going to get it, including myself. 😜
The only way we can be saved is if footflaps comes up with a plan.🙂
Why is it imperative for the human race to survive?
Not sure you will live that long to witness whatever future will look like.
... Prof Cox ...
He is better off simply sitting on the fence in regard to ET. i.e. just say don't know as nobody expects him to solve the puzzle of the Universe. His logic that nothing is out there is comparable to the flat earth of the past. Who knows very far in future (Star Trek reality) Cox will be a laughing stock with his argument just like the way we laugh at those flat earth "intellectuals".
As for most people who are concerned with future human race, this simply does not sound logical or consistence. Why concern? You will be dead in this life time and that's it. End. Nothing. Turn to dust. Your machine has come to the end of it's life. Whether you are concerned or not you will not live to see it. You will Not exist in anyway or form. The only way perhaps is to prepare your children for the things to come, so that they don't curse you for being lazy and idealistic without giving them a head start to survival. Therefore, unless you believe in afterlife or reborn again as human being, there is really no logic for you to justify the future as far as this limited life you still have. Clock is ticking ... your material shell is slowly wearing out.
However, I believe in afterlife or take a future rebirth whatever which sucks! Why? Because I might be reborn in a time of future apocalypse where there will be intense suffering and I might end as a slave to some "amazonian" women as a reproductive machine where there are limited men around. I will be doing it every hour of my living time until such time as I am unable to perform and they use machine to extract ... you know artificial insemination.
Therefore, the logic of your concerned in the future of mankind is inconsistent if you do not believe in afterlife or reborn as some form of life. Your life end in this life and whatever others think of you is irrelevant good or bad. You are dust by that time.
His logic that nothing is out there
He never said that & he wasn't using logic. He said It's unlikely & explained why.
Maybe you should watch the episode where he explained it.
He said It’s unlikely
We currently haven't nor in the current future have the ability to send a person looking. We currently use telescopes to search the solar systems with earth-like exoplanets that have the possibility to sustain life. Bearing in mind we don't even know if life exists under Jupiter's Europa moon or not which compared to other planets is only a stone's throw away.
Hopefully, the new James Webb telescope which is 100 times more powerful than Hubble can help find answers.
Galaxy not Universe
He went on to say he was "sure there are other civilisations out there in the universe" - there are, after all, two trillion galaxies that we know of.
The question for many, including Prof Cox, is how often intelligent life comes into being, and how widely spaced out it is.
He said: "I think they're very widely spaced, and I think there are one or two per galaxy as an average."
So several trillion alien civilizations then.
The question is many have conquered inter-galaxy travel and how many haven't gone beyond pedal power and landing on a nearby moon?
He's only giving his opinion that even he can't truly answer. The real question is life, no matter how simple. Even humans originated from the most basic form of life.
He said: “I think they’re very widely spaced, and I think there are one or two per galaxy as an average.”
So several trillion alien civilizations then.
Most of the galaxies we observe are millions and billions of lightyears distant. The nearest is 25,000 lightyears. So unless there is other intelligent life within our galaxy, we could be waiting an awful long time for any signals.
Most of the galaxies we observe are millions and billions of lightyears distant. The nearest is 25,000 lightyears. So unless there is other intelligent life within our galaxy, we could be waiting an awful long time for any signals.
Never mind about awaiting for signals, if they have been travelling at half the speed of light for the last 50,000 years they could be arriving any day now.
I just hope they come in peace.
I think they will be very disappointed and turn straight back around and head back home.
Never mind about awaiting for signals, if they have been travelling at half the speed of light for the last 50,000 years they could be arriving any day now.
On the other hand there could be millions of civilisations of a similar "advanced state" to ourselves. In which case they will only just be sending primitive robotic craft beyond their solar systems and the oldest radio signals they have sent out will still be 24800 lightyears away from us.
I think they will be very disappointed and turn straight back around and head back home.
Yup, it was probably worth visiting Earth 50,000 years ago when they first set off. Before we trashed it.
Mind you they might be on their second visit.
That will be a disappointment for them.
On the other hand there could be millions of civilisations of a similar “advanced state” to ourselves.
That means the suffering continues if I reborn there 🙁
You're not going to be reborn anywhere.
I am sure there are aliens, but I'm equally sure we're never going to meet any since I don't think FTL travel will turn out to be possible.
Why would they need FTL travel? Why the hurry?
Why can't they travel for thousands of years?
Yeah! Sub light was good enough for the Pak Protectors and look where they got!
You’re not going to be reborn anywhere.
You are turning into dust.
LOL! For me it is just as " ... same rubbish different place ..."
So Prof Cox doesn't know anything but you know you will be reborn. Think I know which person I will be listening to.
The op question instantly reminded me of this article about this idea of Longtermism.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo
Still havent finished reading it though its long.
Edit just noticed it can be listned to as well.
I had to take my dog out for a wee in the middle of the night last night.
It was a clear night and the sky was full of stars. Like jam-packed full.
As I looked up to the sky looking at the stars, focussing further away and noticing even more stars, I thought to myself, I don't give a damn what Prof Cox said, there's no way we're alone here 😉
Obviously I've no idea really. Haven't actually listed to what Prof Cox says but well, I'm just a bit disappointed. I always presumed that there was all sorts of different life out there and to learn that someone who knows much more than me about it, thinks not, leaves me a little sad.
Damn you, Prof Cox and your big brained knowledge!
He could be wrong of course. I'd like to think so at least.
We are and can only be self-referential, so humans are the only ones who can decide what’s good and what’s not, of course.
That makes zero sense to me!
(Life) we can give it any meaning we like. I choose my own meaning which is to have a good time and help others have a good time, without doing too many things that people don’t like.
So then you must agree that some things are ‘better and worse’ for other lifeforms than your self-referencing self? And if you were to stop doing things that they don’t like, then it’s better for them?
Are they though? Who’s to decide that increased biodiversity is ‘good’?
I was specifically referring to ‘better off’. ‘Good’ will sort of suffice though. Again, it comes down to definitions.
1.
to be desired or approved of.
"it's good that he's back to his old self"
2.
having the required qualities
So in reference to ‘who’s to decide?’ , for sake of argument let me choose an obvious example in troops/families of orangutans in a rainforest
They have been suffering from palm oil plantation-owners setting fires to clear the forest cover/habitat, so the orangutans (and nearly every other living thing) are forced by desperation now to search for food elsewhere (often human villages) where they are then captured or killed by farmers who treat them as ‘pests’. An orangutan will be treated in the same fashion as a pesky bug, partly because the human has a cultural belief in it’s supremacy/divinity over it’s nearest cousins.
I’d argue that if the farmers were to disappear overnight then the orangutans are both objectively and subjectively better off because they (like us) objectively and subjectively desire to thrive, eat, reproduce, raise family, be happy, live life and care for their family and friends.
I’d argue that they really wouldn’t care for your sentiment because they’re. 1. Better off eating their food than not having access to their food 2. Better off having somewhere to live as they evolved to live, and 3. Better off not being separated from their families and killed/injured/having to watch their family and friends be killed/injured/taken away.
I’m fairly certain that they don’t care or even have the ability to care what you or I think about this/yours or my sentiment (unless that sentiment was expressed via direct conflict or relief)
I’m also fairly convinced that I’m being neither self-referential nor sentimental by referencing their plight. They are (objectively and subjectively) sentient and they also (objectively and subjectively) have needs to bet met in order to have fulfilling lives.
