Why is it imperative for the human race to survive?

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 :

https://qz.com/562833/the-term-mother-nature-reinforces-the-idea-that-both-women-and-nature-should-be-subjugated/

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

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1384091/brian-cox-science-space-humans-joe-rogan-existence-universe-aliens-earth-fermi-paradox-spt

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.

@Molgrips

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.