sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,013
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
Well meaning is a human idea, its something we've generated entirely. Without humans things like meaning and purpose and happiness and sadness and sorrow and art and even value - these things are meaningless without us. Things are given meaning by us. We are the barometers of what is meaning in a meaningless universe. The universe doesn't ascribe meaning to things or life vs non-life. These are temporary illusions, constructs created by the human mind.
If we are barometers of meaning, then the universe is not meaningless because we are part of the universe. Whether there is higher meaning than that, I do not know. So when you talk about destroying the planet, you're using a human value system. We're the only ones capable recognizing that as a bad thing. The universe in and of itself doesn't care if there is life on this planet or not.
Importance is an arbitrary human construct created to aid our instinct for survival. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Life has the meaning that you assign to it, or that you find in it.
For example, it may be that no intelligence is truly important on a cosmic scale, or that genetic intelligence is, brain intelligence is, AND machine intelligence is. Or it may be that machine intelligence and life merge. Since machine intelligence depends upon biological intelligence to kickstart it, biological intelligence is also significant. Importance is an evaluator-specific term.
Humans are part of nature. Yes, we're trashing the environment more than I like at present, but we are aware of it and we are working on it. And for comparison, photosynthetic microbes put a thousand times as much oxygen in the atmosphere as we have put in carbon dioxide, and oxygen is a lot more reactive. Furthermore, as the sun gets hotter, it will cook the earth, and humanity is the only species that can save it. We need to move the earth 10 meters further from the sun every year to make up for the sun getting brighter. What other species is going to move the earth?
Moving the earth could be done with a few asteroids of the size that wiped out the dinosaurs. Do you try to use one a little bit bigger, or a few dozen quite a bit smaller? It is not an easy choice from what I can see at this point.
If we are barometers of meaning, then the universe is not meaningless because we are part of the universe. Whether there is higher meaning than that, I do not know. So when you talk about destroying the planet, you're using a human value system. We're the only ones capable recognizing that as a bad thing. The universe in and of itself doesn't care if there is life on this planet or not.
Importance is an arbitrary human construct created to aid our instinct for survival. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Life has the meaning that you assign to it, or that you find in it.
For example, it may be that no intelligence is truly important on a cosmic scale, or that genetic intelligence is, brain intelligence is, AND machine intelligence is. Or it may be that machine intelligence and life merge. Since machine intelligence depends upon biological intelligence to kickstart it, biological intelligence is also significant. Importance is an evaluator-specific term.
Humans are part of nature. Yes, we're trashing the environment more than I like at present, but we are aware of it and we are working on it. And for comparison, photosynthetic microbes put a thousand times as much oxygen in the atmosphere as we have put in carbon dioxide, and oxygen is a lot more reactive. Furthermore, as the sun gets hotter, it will cook the earth, and humanity is the only species that can save it. We need to move the earth 10 meters further from the sun every year to make up for the sun getting brighter. What other species is going to move the earth?
Moving the earth could be done with a few asteroids of the size that wiped out the dinosaurs. Do you try to use one a little bit bigger, or a few dozen quite a bit smaller? It is not an easy choice from what I can see at this point.
Would things be better if humanity went extinct? Who knows. It really just depends on what the long term outcomes are of both scenarios. We'd need to know the answer to those two trajectories, which is really, really hard to do because we're just monkeys. But we don't even need to know which one is better to know there is a fact of the matter-- that much is pretty certain. All we can know is, misery would plummet short term(humans cause and endure an inconceivable amount of misery by existing), but it all depends on what would happen much later. Would something worse come out of those conditions? Would we in our natural trajectory, undisturbed, cause worse and worse harm in the universe? Would we conflict with things that are even worse than we are, or cause "happy little accidents"?(Another phrasing here is "pro-social psychopathy", you know, when the serial killer just happens to find the child abuser as their victim and there's some sort of silver lining? That sort of thing)
It's just really complicated at the big scale, so it just seems like the best thing we can do is 1) Acknowledge there are right/wrong answers and there's a fact of the matter(otherwise what the fuck are we even pretending to do?), and 2) try to solve problems at the personal level(reduce our own suffering so we don't make others miserable, reduce/learn to respond with understanding and good intention towards the suffering of others).
Now if we're talking a true fantasy scenario like a button that just vaporizes Earth, that's juicier. It would be a tough decision either way but I think I'd have to press it if forced to make a choice, based on what I'm seeing. Things have looked terrible, and look to become even worse.
It's just really complicated at the big scale, so it just seems like the best thing we can do is 1) Acknowledge there are right/wrong answers and there's a fact of the matter(otherwise what the fuck are we even pretending to do?), and 2) try to solve problems at the personal level(reduce our own suffering so we don't make others miserable, reduce/learn to respond with understanding and good intention towards the suffering of others).
Now if we're talking a true fantasy scenario like a button that just vaporizes Earth, that's juicier. It would be a tough decision either way but I think I'd have to press it if forced to make a choice, based on what I'm seeing. Things have looked terrible, and look to become even worse.
sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,013
I think that humans have transcended nature. Humans have created so many artificial structures. We live in concrete jungles, etc. I don't consider humans to be part of nature. Humans are not essential to the planet. Humans aren't a central part of the food chain like "real" animals are, the food chain doesn't need us, even though we're at the top. There are plenty of other apex predators to choose from. Our presence or absence on this planet makes no difference. Humans are inherently abnormal and different from other species, only humanity has consciousness and is "intelligent"
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
At least as far as we know of on planet earth…
Also depends on your definition of intelligence…
Nature encompasses all that exists: blackholes, stars, dark matter, flowers, quasars, ect. There is no "un-nature."
This is just off the top of my head, but I can definitely get back to this with a more thoughtful, succinct response
Pessimist
Mage
- May 5, 2021
- 529
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
Also on this vein, what makes AI "artificial?" It's not organic?At least as far as we know of on planet earth…
Also depends on your definition of intelligence…
Nature encompasses all that exists: blackholes, stars, dark matter, flowers, quasars, ect. There is no "un-nature."
This is just off the top of my head, but I can definitely get back to this with a more thoughtful, succinct response
sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,013
I guess artificial because it's not biological/organic. Life is carbon-based and AI is machine-basedAlso on this vein, what makes AI "artificial?" It's not organic?
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
To quote Ergo Proxy, "A universe without perception is like a stack of rotting books, never to be opened."
The simplest explanation for what we see around us is that everything that can exist always exists, so naturally we find ourselves in reality that can support perception.
My suspicion is that simpler universes are at least as common as complex universes ( I would say more, except that both may occur in the same class of infinities, and hence mathematically be equally common).
In this case, many universes that lack perception will be much simpler than stacks of rotting books.
To me, a stack of never-to-be-opened rotting books implies that there is knowledge waiting to be discovered but never is discovered.
This seems like a borderline case of complexity of a universe, so while it might exist, I would think that it would be the exception rather than the rule.
I'll get back to this one along with the others.
The above I just posted is just food for thought
This is also just something I would add in the meantime, not a true response but as for the meaning thing…
Sigmund Freud in his book Civilization and its Discontents, probably the greatest book nobody knows about. In the second chapter he says, what is the purpose of life? He said, this is a question thats been asked without end by millions of people. By great philosophers. And he said, it seems nobody has an answer. Because maybe there is no answer. But he said, as for the behavior of men and woman, we can ascertain that they seek pleasure and avoid pain or simply they seek happiness. But I have a more nuanced answer. I've thought a lot about this. I would say the purpose of life is love, but not Hollywood love, not what everybody talks about. I even hate to say the word love. Its actually the words social life. And I'm not talking about the purpose of life after death. Thats not something I know much about. But as to the purpose of life on earth, I'd say its social/love. Love breaks into three subsets. Friends, family, romance. I would say, as a practical matter, the purpose of life is friends, family, romance. Which you can call that love, there's three types of love in old Greek or Latin. There's agape, eros and phileo in life. Agape is like family love, unconditional love you have for your kids. Phileo is like the friendship love. It's like the saying there's no greater love than you would lay down your life. I'd lay down my life, I think, for some of my friends. And then you have eros. Thats where the word erotic comes from. Thats romance, thats sexual love. Thats what makes the world go round.
I would say the purpose on life, a simpler version is social or love.
I would slightly disagree with Sigmund Freud if I may, even though I consider him such an underrated person. So many people in the modern world - oh, didn't he say the id, the super ego hasn't this guy's methodologies and hypotheses been disproven? Yeah, that was in late 1800's, early 1900's. But I don't think I've read anyone at some level more genius than what he wrote. The simplicity that he laid out super complex subjects. But if you think about this, happiness, he said, it seems by the behavior of humans that we seek happiness. We may seek it, but it doesn't mean its the purpose. Happiness is the fuel that allows you to get out of bed. But ultimately, humans are social creatures. There's a great book by Matt Lieberman, former Harvard, now he's at UCLA, a neuroscientist, and he has all this advanced research he's done with FMRI machines, where you study the brain function. It's all social. We dream about social situations. Our fears are social, our ambitions are social, our appetites are rooted in social. So if you read that book Social by Matt Lieberman, everything is social. So the purpose of life at an FMRI level functional magnetic resonance imaging machine. When you study the brain, no matter what people say, the scans don't lie. We think in social terms, we live in social terms. The great Greek billionaire Onassis who married JFK's widow. He said all the money in the world doesn't matter if there wasn't women. That was his take on it. But if you read deeper, he was saying that at a core level, the other pillars of the good life, health, wealth and happiness, they exist to support your movement towards a better social life.
Last edited:
Captive_Mind515
King or street sweeper, dance with grim reaper!
- Jul 18, 2023
- 433
We're just playing silly games anyway. Human society is fabricated nonsense, that artificially gives people purpose and meaning. It's all a bit of a hoax! A clever scam that we're indoctrinated into from cradle to grave…
Hard to say. It is obvious that humans don't learn from the past. I wouldn't care it tomorrow we'd all be dead, I would welcome it, obviously.
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
R_N
-Memento Mori-
- Dec 3, 2019
- 1,442
Not just humans.
But it depends how you look at it. If you can accept/ignore beings suffering then maybe you can see some appeal in existence. After all even animals hurt one another.
The issue I find with humans when they discuss positive aspects of life is how they are blind to animal suffering for example. Some religious people are even oblivious to the fact that animals have a nervous system and feel pain.
But it depends how you look at it. If you can accept/ignore beings suffering then maybe you can see some appeal in existence. After all even animals hurt one another.
The issue I find with humans when they discuss positive aspects of life is how they are blind to animal suffering for example. Some religious people are even oblivious to the fact that animals have a nervous system and feel pain.
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
R_N
-Memento Mori-
- Dec 3, 2019
- 1,442
You might be right even tho for a long time I believed that we have needs based on what something greater wants of us.
I feel all of my needs are imposed upon me and I have no control over them even when it seems I do. I feel like a puppet with no free will.
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
I don't know if there's freewill or not. I think the jury is still out. I haven't really looked into this lately. I think there's room for it because we still don't have a firm grasp on consciousness but I mean I wouldn't say a bacterium has freewill. Its all very rigid mechanical processes. Us, I feel like we do. If we do, where's the line? Where is the complexity of self reflection that allows for freewill and what is the mechanism? Maybe there is something quantum mechanical going on. I don't know.
Considering the single-universe sense, in my opinion quantum mechanics plus chaos/complexity eliminates determinism.
Even a bacterium has sufficient complexity to have something resembling free will, although to a much lesser extent than humans.
Yes, I believe so. Give the rest of the animals and plants that inhabit this earth a chance to recover. I don't think we're altruistic enough to slow down our destruction of this planet. I imagine we may well wipe ourselves out before the sun explodes and kills everything but I think it would be nice if the billions of other organisms on this planet had a restbite from us before that happens. I wonder which animal would become the most dominant next.
Plus, I'm probably more in favour of nature than AI. Without us, so long as AI hasn't been created to an indepenent level, that would die too. (Although- would it ever have been alive?) Somehow, if AI is created in our image and- if they have no need for nature, I could see them continuing in the same pillage and plunder fashion we have with regards to other species. I think they need a good long break from creatures that can enslave and butcher them en masse. Good riddance to the lot of us!
Maybe it would be good if some good alien spiecies one day came along though and collected all of humankinds greatest achievements and displayed them in some museum. Isn't it weird to think one day- no one will be around to hear your favourite song? Any form of it will have been melted by the sun.
Plus, I'm probably more in favour of nature than AI. Without us, so long as AI hasn't been created to an indepenent level, that would die too. (Although- would it ever have been alive?) Somehow, if AI is created in our image and- if they have no need for nature, I could see them continuing in the same pillage and plunder fashion we have with regards to other species. I think they need a good long break from creatures that can enslave and butcher them en masse. Good riddance to the lot of us!
Maybe it would be good if some good alien spiecies one day came along though and collected all of humankinds greatest achievements and displayed them in some museum. Isn't it weird to think one day- no one will be around to hear your favourite song? Any form of it will have been melted by the sun.
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
Humans are the only species capable in the future of moving the earth away from the sun as it expands, and it is actually quite possible. I actually explained this in one of the posts above. One of my issues with the alien concept is that people basically turn to that idea as a replacement for God and angels that one day there is going to be this cosmic savior.
Yes, humans are currently trashing the planet far more than I would like. Also, if humans eventually move off world, which I strongly believe they will, they are likely going to take other species with them just like they did when they moved to the New World. Possibly DNA, embryos and even living specimen.
Humans are also the only species capable of resurrecting extinct species.
No less than 4 million species of plants and animals currently exist on earth. However it is estimated that somewhere between 5 - 50 BILLION species have lived here at some point since the planet came into being. In other words:
99.9% of species have not escaped the fate of extinction. Organisms on earth have undergone 6 mass extinctions.
The dinosaurs existed nearly 10 times longer than all humans. Our cousins the Neanderthals existed for 600,000 years or nearly two-three times longer than we've been around.
I would look up the 25 cognitive biases humans definitely have a tendency to focus on the negative. Heuristics.
Last edited:
Seriously? That's impressive- if we could really move the earth. Wouldn't we still be screwed though- without a sun? If this one eventually explodes? I can't see us surviving that long though. I doubt we'll evolve quickly enough or, learn to live on other planets fast enough in a race with climate change.
I didn't really mean an alien race would save us. I'd rather hope they had the sense to leave us to destroy ourselves. I meant more- humanities achievements- our music, greatest inventions etc. It would be nice to think of them being recorded somehow. Not actual humans though. Well- that's my preference anyhow. We have some good attributes to us but overall, I think we are an incredibly destructive and harmful species.
As for living off planet- I really hope not. But yes- I could well see it... We find some pure unsuspecting planet to settle on. Move there with a sci-fi Noah's Ark with all our favourite animals from earth. Then, someone will probably discover dead native species to that planet that were destroyed by the animals we brought with us or, the diseases they carried. (Look at what happened when we introduced grey squirrels to the UK- they killed off the native species.) If a planet has conditions suitable to sustain life like this planet- why wouldn't they have some sort of life already there? Do you think entrepeneurs will give a shit about that life if they can make money?
How do you know humans are the only species that can resurrect extinct species? Are you sure there are no superior beings in this universe? And actually- can we? How come Jurassic Park isn't real yet then?
True- animals have gone extinct en masse in the past. That doesn't exactly deminish all the damage we've done though. But hey- I hope you're right. One of my very greatest heroes- Sir David Attenborough still has faith that the human race can turn things around. I hope you're right. I'm glad I won't have to witness it if we fail though.
sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,013
Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature, destroyed the planet and its natural resources, and caused unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negatives
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
So for Jurassic Park - it's limited because DNA breaks down and we need a solid sample. It's more with closer species in time like mammoths.
We will terraform insides of structures that we construct from asteroid rubble. Ceres alone could produce usable surface area roughly 2000 times bigger than Earth's surface, assuming rubble thickness that provides the same shielding as Earth's atmosphere.
I suspect that individual few-kilometer cylinders will be much more practical than Dyson spheres, and could have an aggregate inner surface area millions of times that of the Earth's surface. Roughly 5 m of asteroid rubble would provide comparable shielding to Earth's atmosphere/magnetic field, and it is almost within current technology to start building smaller ones.
For example, oxygen is actually one of the greatest oxidizers and bacteria have filled the environment with oxygen…
It's not to say that humans have not been destructive
Morality is subjective, not objective…
Also, we would've entered an Ice Age already, if it was not because of human farming, and clearing of forests. Again, I'm not saying the climate change is not real and I'm not saying that we're not changing the planet currently but I'm just saying as a couple examples
Yeah, I do feel this too. I feel guilty for my hand in it. Each thing I chuck into landfill. It's depressing when I think of how much rubbish I've generated in my life. All the harm it would have done. All the animals that have died for me. It's horrible. You could go mad with guilt but- you can't. You have to keep living this dumb arse life because it will upset people if you don't. So, you just ignore it and carry on as best you can, making tiny amounts of effort- go vegetarian, try and recycle all you can. But in the words of the late great Sean Lock, it feels like 'bringing a dustpan and brush to tidy up the aftermath of an earthquake!'
I guess though- ultimately, I do forgive myself. I didn't choose to be born into this but- now, I'm expected to live here and get by as best I can. So- I will, until I don't have to anymore. My greatest contribution is not having children. My dumb genes aren't clever enough to solve the climate change crisis. I would have likely just brought another struggling artist into this world. Lol.
Sometimes I think- if there is a red button to launch the nuclear bombs, it will likely be an environmentalist that has the best motive to press it. Look at how Chernobyl bounced back. Kind of depressing really- a nuclear fallout area is probably the safest place an animal could be probably!
Sounds very clever and impressive. I'm still glad neither I or my unborn offspring will be around to see it though. I'm happy to let my genes die with me. I probably don't care much what the rest of humanity gets up to. I just hope it doesn't continue in the same explotative way it always has done- although, I suspect it will.
Last edited:
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
From a multi-universe perspective, is it really depressing? Or is it just events unfolding, things happening? The chaos of the universe. Broader perspective. My answer would be - everything that can exist always exists, so there really is no time, and in the grand scheme of things everything happens. But from a local perspective, it can be depressing when something bad happens in the thread of reality that your current consciousness is experiencing.
Ultimately humanity will merge with ageless machines.
Nuclear winter would last from a few years to a decade.
What metric of measure are you using to say it's a net negative? Measurement is arbitrary…
Humans are genociding animals but also, everyday regardless of human behavior, many species go extinct. It's up to humanity to catalogue them.
Global Extinction Rates: Why Do Estimates Vary So Wildly?
Is it 150 species a day or 24 a day or far less than that? Prominent scientists cite dramatically different numbers when estimating the rate at which species are going extinct. Why is that?
e360.yale.edu
As George Carlin said, "the planet is fine. The people are fucked."
Evolution has no "goal." It's not higher and higher organisms. The "goal" of evolution is to simply keep chugging along and it doesn't care how many species it has to throw into the meat grinder. Intelligence is simply a result of our evolutionary and environmental pressures that happened to be the best survival strategy for us. On other planets, they may have different evolutionary pressures and intelligence may not flourish.
Humans are also capable of great works of art, beauty, sacrifice and compassion. Some animals can demonstrate this, too…
It is a continuum, not an all or nothing thing.
Art is a compact way of conveying information. As such, it sits alongside language, genomes, etc., as something innate in a universe of sufficient complexity. In my opinion, art (beyond "found art" like the pebbles arose when we started making tools. I didn't create the Mona Lisa, either, but I can still appreciate it as art. Art is a form of communication– sometimes a way of saying that something is mine, sometimes a way of emphasizing how much I value it or how much time I put into it… yes aliens would value and recognize our art, after all, we recognize what BowerBirds build as art. Penguins will look for the absolute smoothest, best-looking pebble foe their mate. Birds dance in a choreographed fashion.
There is attraction but is a dog moved in awe at recognizing the beauty of a sunset or the mountains? Or is it simply just comforted by the landscape? What is the evolutionary purpose of beauty (no attraction)? What value did it bring the species, just comfort from survival? Why don't other species have that then? It is a continuum, not an all or nothing thing.
Should we cause all viruses to go extinct? They cause a lot of suffering across all the kingdoms of life, not just animals.
Just because we can save species, does not necessarily mean we should. Nature has selected some for extinction. We are also the only ones who can reverse that - should we stop species from going extinct? Probably. It would be in our best interest to do so because changes in populations affect the ecosystem and changes in ecosystem can have terribly negative affects not only to that ecosystem but to the entire biosphere as a whole. Especially if those changes lead to the collapse of certain ecosystems, who knows those could be catastrophic on the entire planet.
Last edited:
I suppose I don't like this broader perspective because it negates responsibility. Muderers are very often found culpable because they know what they're doing is causing suffering and denying autonomy to another sentient being. An asteroid heading straight for the earth isn't doing it deliberately. We know what damage we do but, we do it anyway because it's more convenient and it benefits us. The point is- we have consciousness to realise this. Most other events and creatures probably don't so much.
In the grand scheme of things- who knows what matters? No one can decide on which rule book we should be following. Do we know for absolute fact there's no meaning to life? No consequences to the decisions we make? I don't know.
By extension though- if nothing matters in the grand scheme of things, why would it matter if we go instinct or not?
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
Do you believe that humans are inherently evil? My understanding from cutting edge neuroscience and psychology is that we have simply not outgrown our evolutionary programming yet and the hope is that through technology we will one day be able to
Again, on a *local scale* it is depressing. But I'm saying, when viewed from the omniverse, everything that can exist, does exist. If we go extinct here. There are an infinite number of universes where this will still be happening. Does it matter? Again, value is a human idea that we created. Same with meaning and morality. It's something that we have generated entirely. Morality is subjective. Does life have value? It's an idea. I think it does. Absolutely. But I recognize that, that is from my human perspective. Humans are incapable of objectivity. Journalism is a product of the human mind, too.
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Again, on a *local scale* it is depressing. But I'm saying, when viewed from the omniverse, everything that can exist, does exist. If we go extinct here. There are an infinite number of universes where this will still be happening. Does it matter? Again, value is a human idea that we created. Same with meaning and morality. It's something that we have generated entirely. Morality is subjective. Does life have value? It's an idea. I think it does. Absolutely. But I recognize that, that is from my human perspective. Humans are incapable of objectivity. Journalism is a product of the human mind, too.
Last edited:
sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,013
Yeah, I believe that humans are inherently selfish and evil.Do you believe that humans are inherently evil? My understanding from cutting edge neuroscience and psychology is that we have simply not outgrown our evolutionary programming yet and the hope is that through technology we will one day be able to
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Again, on a *local scale* it is depressing. But I'm saying, when viewed from the omniverse, everything that can exist, does exist. If we go extinct here. There are an infinite number of universes where this will still be happening. Does it matter? Again, value is a human idea that we created. Same with meaning and morality. It's something that we have generated entirely. Morality is subjective. Does life have value? It's an idea. I think it does. Absolutely. But I recognize that, that is from my human perspective. Humans are incapable of objectivity. Journalism is a product of the human mind, too.
Why do you think so?
DarkRange55
I am Skynet
- Oct 15, 2023
- 1,842
Why do you think they inherently evil instead of being programmed with outdated anarchistic survival drives that clash with the modern world and haven't caught up yet?
Do you believe that humans are inherently evil? My understanding from cutting edge neuroscience and psychology is that we have simply not outgrown our evolutionary programming yet and the hope is that through technology we will one day be able to
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
I think we have some very unpleasant tendancies to our nature that awareness doesn't seem to restrain. Personally- I'm not convinced we are becoming nicer as a species. Are you? We may have policies that tell us to be more tolerant of one another but, I'm not sure that's how we really feel.
I think we're a very entitled species which makes us simply ignore all the damage we know we're doing. How much worse or more stupid can you get than an organism that actively destroys its own habitat? Alongside the habitat of billions of other creatures? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic... Not to say it's 'evil'- like you say- that's a human concept. You can't deny that it's dumb though! We don't deserve to survive if we carry on like this- just sucking out the resources of everything in our path and killing anything that gets in our way.
How will technologies further us as a species do you think? These new Elon Musk brain chips or whatever? What makes you think that the modern, technological world is better than natural laws? Do you think capitalism and consumerism benefits everyone equally? Do you think we'll ever shake those two pillars in society?
Yeah- sure- on the absolute mathematics level, I doubt very much matters at all. This world is made up of sentient creatures though... We know full well what it means to be a sentient creature because- we are one- so- while it might benefit any of us to whack your granny over the head and steal her pension money- the hope is- most of us won't!
We may enjoy products with palm oil in but- yes- I do find it sad that 300 soccer field's worth of rainforest per hour is being destroyed to plant it. We know that is killing off species and contributing to CO2 emisions. But hey, that cake we just ate was delicious! So- nevermind hey?
I'm just a big a hypocrite as everyone else though- I'd like to add. It's not like I'm trying to be high, mighty and righteous here but yes- I feel shit about it... Then I feel resentful because I was brought here and then made to feel guilty for it! Then I wonder what it's like for children being brought into this world. They will grow up being told from infancy what a blight humans are on the environment. And they get the prize of having to try and sort it out before they are knee deep in flood water or, feeing from a fire or, digging themselves out of earthquake rubble. Lucky old them. But again- maybe you're right. Maybe humanity is heading for a new golden age. Who knows?
RemainingDubious
All of these lies are not worth fighting for
- Feb 18, 2024
- 374
This question is rather difficult to answer since the dictionary definition of humanity is humans collectively and also the quantity of being humane.
If we pay attention to the bigger picture and what's going on globally it's difficult to ignore how inhumane humans often are.
When we look at history (his story) hsss
the story of man isn't a pretty one. There's barely anything kind about mankind (man kind, That must be some kind of joke) we allow the same story to replay over and over while expecting different results. It's ridiculous. Humans have just sat back and allowed selfishness cause so much suffering, not only are people suffering so are animals, insects and plants.
It's difficult to disagree with Agent Smith's revelation
Unless the majority of humans become humane. We should become extinct and allow mother nature to heal and leave the planet to animals to exist free from our destruction. After all we've been heading towards extinction for some time.
If we pay attention to the bigger picture and what's going on globally it's difficult to ignore how inhumane humans often are.
When we look at history (his story) hsss
the story of man isn't a pretty one. There's barely anything kind about mankind (man kind, That must be some kind of joke) we allow the same story to replay over and over while expecting different results. It's ridiculous. Humans have just sat back and allowed selfishness cause so much suffering, not only are people suffering so are animals, insects and plants.It's difficult to disagree with Agent Smith's revelation
Unless the majority of humans become humane. We should become extinct and allow mother nature to heal and leave the planet to animals to exist free from our destruction. After all we've been heading towards extinction for some time.
