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".

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.

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.

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

That's one possibility. Another possibility is: we don't wipe ourselves out, we build ASI and sustain full control over it, and we lose our biological state on purpose rather than on accident.

And even if this is something none of us will ever experience, thinking about it still seems like a fun / useful exercise

Sure. Our perceptions and mental states are probably going to be subject to tons of technological "tuning". Who knows what that's going to look like

This is all spitballing / conjecture obviously

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".

I was thinking that'd be a symptom of some other change, not the point

Unless we transition to a state where our passage (and perception) of time is much faster

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)

No reason ever? Beyond being an engaging philosophical topic, it can have the benefits that have already been mentioned.

You point out that there life will be very different that far into the future, which I'd agree with. But our passage of time might be very different as well.

Again, not saying we dump all our grant money (or any) studying this question. But I also don't think it's useless to think about.

Idk, let's speculate on some reasons:

1. It makes our current conflicts seem small or unimportant. A sense of "smallness" against the backdrop of the entire species or the entire universe. This seems similar in spirit to comments made by people like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson when discussing the "largeness" of the universe and Earth's place in it.
2. It gives us a common goal, which might drive social cohesion, which is a role religion and myth currently fulfill
3. It makes us reflect on why we care about our own survival in the first place, and what the whole point of our existence is beyond our own survival as individuals

This is all speculation, but it's just as speculative as: this is going to distract us from facing real issues and bring us closer to our demise.

That's usually what happens, and has been happening for the past few thousand years. So seems like you're making an accurate hypothesis

If I point you to data that shows that the human condition has been rapidly improving (probably a result of our tendency to spend tons of money developing technologies like artificial intelligence), would you take back your comment that we're idiots?

>it's a bold assumption to assume humanity will exist significantly into the future whereby we exist long enough to be there at the end

Even if it's a low probability that humans exist that long (which I don't believe it is), planning for it seems rational because:

1. If the wager is correct, you've successful prepared yourself (or future humans) for a better experience of the future. That's a good thing
2. If wager is wrong, you wasted a little bit of time that could have been spent maximizing your present utility, which seems like a small, marginal reward that I'm happy forfeiting.

If we start funding all grant money towards escaping heat death, then that's silly.

But if we're just talking about whether it's worth pondering or considering, that could be a motivator towards solving present problems (as the OP has suggested).

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?

It's not unreasonable (or "illogical") to ask whether this type of long-term awareness would be valuable.

You ask, "Why would anyone ever care about such a thing?", here's two reasons:

1. If it serves as a cultural motivator / unified goal (like the OP is suggesting), then it's valuable even if you don't give a shit about what happens 10 trillion years from now
2. Many of us already feel a built-in sense of obligation to future generations of humans. Why not just extrapolate that as far as it can go? (as long as it doesn't disrupt our ability to focus on present problems, and as long as we appropriately weight the needs of humans today)

I'd say we have a distribution of things to care about, and we should put "avoid heat death of the universe" on the list just as a fun reminder. But (in line with u/Doktor_Wunderbar's sentiments) we shouldn't sink any actually effort into solving it (maybe in 100,000 years).