Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg3esv wrote

Reply to comment by strvgglecity in Discussion: the goal of human existence should be avoiding the heat death of the universe by Mickeymousse1

And that is beautiful isn't it? That's the whole point, to never let this die

Through random chance we got here and it makes It all the more amazing

1

strvgglecity t1_jcg6x4m wrote

Based on current realities, I'd argue human expansion would be a net negative for life, assuming there is other life in the universe. Our species behaves like a cancer, growing exponentially until there is no more material to be consumed, at which point it must find new resources.

−1

fieryflamingfire t1_jcgdnxj wrote

If there's life on other planets, you don't think they'd be doing the same thing?

If a different species on earth were the ones who got intelligence (let's say, pandas), they would have handled the evolution of civilization differently?

2

strvgglecity t1_jcgm856 wrote

Not if they are intelligent. No intelligent species would construct its own demise on purpose just to achieve a vanishingly small period of extreme opulence and convenience.

−1

fieryflamingfire t1_jch8hpv wrote

Seems like an unfair definition of intelligence.

It could just be that the coordination of 8 billion intelligent agents is a very hard task (which would explain why the "Why can't we all just get along" sentiment doesn't ever change much)

1

strvgglecity t1_jchg8dy wrote

Your definition of intelligence seems to reflect solely on the experience of humans. Dolphins are intelligent. Primates are intelligent. Crows are intelligent.

What exactly do you mean, then, when you say "intelligence"?

1

StarChild413 t1_jchup73 wrote

Your definition that you say humans lack despite being human seems to confuse sapience with wisdom

2

fieryflamingfire t1_jckb6qv wrote

Good question. One definition could be something like: what is the most computationally difficult task your species can solve? (and we can barrow from some metrics from computer science to define task difficulty)

The key here is: I think the problems we see with the world aren't the result of humans being "unintelligent" (possibly similar to u/StarChild413's point about sapience -vs- wisdom).

I think if an alien species visited earth and watched us, their conclusion wouldn't be: "wow, look at these idiots". Rather, I think it would be: "oh, that makes sense that they're doing that, given millions of years of evolution in competitive, resource scarce environments + the computational problem of resource allocation with a species that large".

2

strvgglecity t1_jckwqkz wrote

I'm pretty sure scarcity doesn't cause fascism, racism, sexism, or nuclear bombs. If aliens visit us, this is the reaction I expect: https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ

0

fieryflamingfire t1_jcl5hfq wrote

interesting. so armed conflict and the technologies that it evolved (like nuclear bombs) have nothing to do with resource scarcity and the evolved drive to acquire surplus and control?

You're aware chimp tribes go to war with eachother, right? If chimps won the evolutionary race, they're civilization would have been one giant enlightened progressive think-tank? They wouldn't have many of the same qualities we do?

"Humans are just animals" is a comment usually made to convey the idea that "we aren't so special", or to keep our species' ego in check. I think the comment also applies to hyper-cynicism about our species.

Funny youtube video though, thanks for sharing

1

strvgglecity t1_jcl6f2y wrote

World war II had nothing to do with scarcity or resources, for which the atomic bomb was proposed, invented and used. Building atomic science is indicative of intelligence. Using that science to commit genocide is not intelligence.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jclik9j wrote

My claim here is that the practice of warfare makes sense given our evolutionary history, not that every specific war must be related to resource scarcity.

There are problems in trying to predict the evolutionary cause of something, since it's difficult to falsify any evolution claim. But believing that all of our negative characteristics are unique to us, or just some historical accident, is narcissistic and unhelpfully cynical.

1

strvgglecity t1_jcliyfv wrote

Unique? Why is reddit today absolutely chock full of people who make up shit in their own heads that I never said? I never said anything about being unique. I listed facts. An interstellar society would likely see us and say "no fucking way are we stepping in that shit show, we'll check back in 200 or 300 years".

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jclys18 wrote

So you're saying the negative aspects of humans are unique humans? an interstellar society wouldn't have the same negative traits, and would be surprised to see that we would? if that isn't what you're saying let me know, I dont want to put words in your mouth.

And I'm glad we're clarfiying, because my claim here is the exact opposite of yours: the negative aspects of human society are a result of evolutionary pressures, and any large scale society anywhere in the universe would develop similar negative traits assuming they went through a similar evolutionary trajectory.

1

strvgglecity t1_jclzb8w wrote

No evidence to support your hypothesis. It's made up out of thin air. I am saying any entities that achieve interstellar travel must be extremely advanced, far beyond the capabilities of a species that wages global wars on itself.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jcvd2vz wrote

Lol, of course there isn't any evidence. We're talking about an extremely hypothetical scenario. Both of our positions lack empirical data. The difference is, my claim is descriptive, while yours is loaded with your own personal value judgements.

And my claim isn't that a species visiting earth is going to have the same problems / conflicts that humans do. It's that they wouldn't be surprised. Or, they would have probably gone through a similar development, making the same "mistakes".

1

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jci4978 wrote

But, since we're on the topic of how to control for effects over extremely long timelines, what do you think about the fact that earth life will die off in a relatively short period of time unless it can intelligently organize in order to colonize other solar systems? This solar system has a relatively near expiration date as far as the habitability for all life as we know it is concerned. Earth life has probably been around for more time than it has left before the sun kills everything here.

This period of time is so dynamic with regards to extremely long-term outcomes because we're so close technologically to being able to save earth life from this expiration date, but it's a damaging and dangerous time too. We're on the edge of destruction and salvation simultaneously, and the outcome depends on how successful we are at working together as a group to wield technology in favor of our interests (including long term ones).

The point of the above being that earth life is middle aged or elderly at 4 billion years old, considering the life cycle of this solar system. The only chance earth has to make an impact on a more distant future than a few billion more years years is for a species like humans to make space colonization possible. Could another intelligent species have performed this whole process better? Maybe, but a lot of the ills of our society and impact on ecology are integral to how a society must develop technologies like this, it just depends what kind of instincts you have to fight against as a group while doing it.

I feel like saving earth life from a relatively near-term death sentence is better than barring technological advancement because it created an ecological disaster. Lots of natural things cause ecological disasters, but instead of getting nothing out of it, we could be saving the only life we know of in the universe. Since we've already found ourselves in this position, I think the responsible thing to do is to do our best to control and stabilize climate and ecology while we take advantage of a potentially fleeting opportunity to help life get off this planet. It spent 4 billion years cooking up different creatures and destroying them, and now it's produced one that might be strong enough to leave the nest and make something of itself before this incubation chamber dries up. I feel compelled to take advantage of the opportunity.

There's a popular analysis called the Fermi Paradox, which postulates that the likelihood of technologically advanced alien life existing within a given proximity to earth seems higher based on a scientific analysis than we observe in space. We don't see robust evidence of technologically advanced alien life anywhere, and it begs the question "Why do we find ourselves so alone in our observable section of the universe?" The possible answers are:

•Maybe life is really difficult to get the right conditions for in the first place.

•Maybe technologically intelligent life is really difficult for life to evolve into.

•Maybe technologically intelligent life overwhelmingly tends to destroy itself with its own technology before it can use it to save itself and exist for a long time.

•Or maybe there are plenty of other aliens, and we either live in a simulated universe just for us, made by an alien, or the aliens overwhelmingly use technology that doesn't produce recognizable electromagnetic signatures for whatever reason.

The mainstream interpretation is that the evidence feels a little stacked against life being difficult to start in the first place, just because of the vast scope of the observable universe. The same goes for the idea that technologically intelligent life would be too difficult to evolve because of the competitive edge afforded by it, and based on the variety of intelligence we see across the animal kingdom. The third idea feels particularly compelling because this advanced technology does indeed feel dangerous to wield. The fourth possibility doesn't have robust evidence supporting it, but it's a possibility and should be included for the sake of rigor.

Futurists (Futurologists?) talk about what may be the "great filter" which has kept the universe so devoid of technologically advanced alien life, and worry that we may be close to encountering it. Considering how profoundly alone we find ourselves in the universe, I don't feel comfortable being so quick to throw away the one chance we know of to preserve life for the future.

1