WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

[Nick_A]

It all boils down to consciousness being a journey of discovery. I have no problem with this being true whether one feels it or not, in various degrees or at various times. In spite of it being true, equally veracious is the fact that there can never be an even close to definitive answer. That is not possible!

It has often been said, it's the journey that counts because it's in that travelog we define and refine our own variables going forward. In a sense, we extract what we need, continually and silently seeding the universe with what we hope to find. Perhaps in the future we'll see more of what those plantations have wrought by way of meaning and purpose and whether its harvest will overlap with our preconceptions.

You wrote: "It all boils down to consciousness being a journey of discovery." The journey of discovery for science reveals facts and how they relate to each other. What IYO does the conscious journey of discovery reveal and what is its value?

No one, whether collectively or individually comes back from a long pilgrimage the same as when he left.

Who knows what any journey of discovery reveals or its value? How can such even be denoted or quantified? To make any such assumptions is thoroughly naive!

Imagine yourself walking on a city street and being part of the crowd. You are aware of all the interactions taking place and become part of these interactions. This is our normal reactive consciousness.

Now take an elevator up to the first floor and look down at the crowd from a window. It will create a different impression. Now take the elevator up to the second floor and look out. The crowd holds your attention even less and you become more aware of the surrounding areas. The crowd is becoming part of a larger perspective. Go up to the third floor and the crowd becomes only a small part of a much larger perspective. This is what I mean by conscious discovery. It creates a human perspective within which the street the street perspective is included.

Astronauts experience it. It is now called the Overview Effect.

https://www.businessinsider.com/overvie ... ace-2015-8

When astronauts first saw Earth from afar in the Apollo 8 mission in 1968 — the US's second manned mission to the moon — they described a cognitive shift in awareness after seeing our planet "hanging in the void."

This state of mental clarity, called the "overview effect," occurs when you are flung so far away from Earth that you become totally overwhelmed and awed by the fragility and unity of life on our blue globe. It's the uncanny sense of understanding the "big picture," and of feeling connected yet bigger than the intricate processes bubbling on Earth.

The point I am making is that the increased obsession with dualism and fragmentation makes it increasingly difficult to experience the overview effect even through simple efforts of conscious attention. We cannot experience ourselves from a conscious or human perspective Yet without a human perspective I cannot see why anyone would wonder why we exist and why we are here. Such a person is too caught up in the world, in Plato's cave, to take these basic philosophical religious questions seriously. If we cannot contemplate these questions how can we expect to be anything other than animal Man serving a cosmic necessity along with the rest of organic life on earth?

[Greta]

Arks are an interesting idea but I can't see it working. Space is a horrid place for biology and especially for busy-minded humans. It would be like living permanently in a submarine or, at best, a ship. No weather, no rain, birds, crickets, frogs, no animals per se, trees, grass, blue or cloudy skies - just inky space with sparkles and humans, lots of humans, as many as can be included on the ark. I'd rather roast on the planet!

There seems to be a slight paradox here. If, as you maintain, we need to eventually get off this planet as unsustainable, how could that be done without building ark-like structures? Based on distances, we could only travel in tiny increments to destination. As I see it, one would need ships that are worlds in themselves to arrive where we planned to go all the while hoping and praying it will turn out as we expect. If it's just a matter of settling on Mars then obviously that kind of complexity is not required. It also isn't going to offer us much more time as the sun turns into a red giant since, as cosmic distances go, Mars is just across the street.

It could go a few ways. The simplest would be that we die out but our machines/AI seed other worlds (or try to). Or AI itself may evolve and be the ones to carry on the torch, or perhaps cyborged humans. Or human minds be digitised and the people reconstructed on a safe world, without needing to worry about air, food, heat, cold, toxicity and so forth. There may well be Chinese or Indian arks since their Earthly lifestyles are often easy to improve upon.

As you say, Mars may be of little use, though - a cold toxic desert, pelted with radiation and racked with dust storms. Still, their vast lava tunes could provide interim bases until better arrangements are devised.

[TimeSeeker]

As I see it, one would need ships that are worlds in themselves to arrive where we planned to go all the while hoping and praying it will turn out as we expect.

It's a better option than do-nothing. The destiny of this planet and this solar system is already predetermined. Biblical hell is a certainty if we remain here.

The rest is just a race against the clock.

On an long enough timeline our strategy is to become multi-galactic (don't put all your eggs in one basket), but this would be a gradual achievement.

As milestone 1 for making it outside our comfort zone here on Earth - I would like to see a thriving human community on the Moon. Mars will come later.

The first thing to worry about is not the technology - it's our bodies. We evolved to be a good fit to this environment. So there are all sorts of long-term side-effects of living on the Moon or Mars we haven't thought about. And we will have to think on our feet as and when the problems crop up.

[Atla]

The current human species is incapable of surviving on this planet on the long run (probably not even on the short run, the next 100-200 years), and therefore perfectly incapable of surviving anywhere else. Which is why first we need to genetically engineer a superior species of human, if we (or rather they, the superior species) want to survive.

[TimeSeeker]

The current human species is incapable of surviving on this planet on the long run (probably not even on the short run, the next 100-200 years), and therefore perfectly incapable of surviving anywhere else. Which is why first we need to genetically engineer a superior species of human, if we (or rather they, the superior species) want to survive.

If we can't genetically engineer a superior species in 100-200 years then I guess we are already screwed?
Maybe we have already missed the point of no-return. Still - all we can do is try.

And we can't engineer any species of human that we could call "superior" if we don't know the habitat it needs to survive in and the challenges it needs to withstand. Engineering is risk management, so somebody will have to volunteer to be the Guinnea pig for us to learn what risks await us.

Design follows failure far more than it follows function.

[Atla]

And we can't engineer any species of human that we could call "superior" if we don't know the habitat it needs to survive in and the challenges it needs to withstand.

I was talking about genetically engineering a new species of human that can survive on Earth, first. People who start with: "let's abandon Earth and colonize other planets", have no grip at all.

[TimeSeeker]

And we can't engineer any species of human that we could call "superior" if we don't know the habitat it needs to survive in and the challenges it needs to withstand.

I was talking about genetically engineering a new species of human that can survive on Earth, first. People who start with: "let's abandon Earth and colonize other planets", have no grip at all.

Aristotelians. Always blind to the excluded middle.

Nobody is talking about abandoning Earth. I am talking about habitat diversification. Forced entropy -> forced learning.

To 'engineer' a human which will survive Earth first you need to know what existential challenges Earth is going to throw at us in 100-200 years. Then you need to know what genetic changes to make to humans so they can cope with the new habitat. Do you?
Simply: What are our design/success criteria? We have no fucking clue! So what exactly are we supposed to be 'engineering' then?

The success of your plan rests squarely on our ability to predict what will happen in 200 years AND the ability to develop the technology to do genetic engineering with the precision necessary to grow humans with gills (if the icecaps melt).

You are betting the faith of humanity on the hope that humans can accurately predict the future and their ability to deliver projects and technology on a tight schedule. Now that's a gamble!

The success of your plan rests squarely on human infallibility.
Not to mention that you would have wasted 200 years of opportunity to learn how to survive off-planet
If we eventually MUST get off this planet (and we do!) we MUST start learning how to survive off-planet RIGHT! NOW!

That's why we don't let people who think like you near applied ethics. You have this silly habbit of putting all your eggs in one basket then despair when your plan doesn't survive contact with reality.

[Atla]

Aristotelians. Always blind to the excluded middle.

Nobody is talking about abandoning Earth. I am talking about habitat diversification. Forced entropy -> forced learning.

To 'engineer' a human which will survive Earth first you need to know what existential challenges Earth is going to throw at us in 100-200 years. Then you need to know what genetic changes to make to humans so they can cope with the new habitat. Do you?
Simply: What are our design/success criteria? We have no fucking clue! So what exactly are we supposed to be 'engineering' then?

The success of your plan rests squarely on our ability to predict what will happen in 200 years AND the ability to develop the technology to do genetic engineering with the precision necessary to grow humans with gills (if the icecaps melt).

You are betting the faith of humanity on the hope that humans can accurately predict the future and their ability to deliver projects and technology on a tight schedule. Now that's a gamble!

The success of your plan rests squarely on human infallibility.
Not to mention that you would have wasted 200 years of opportunity to learn how to survive off-planet
If we eventually MUST get off this planet (and we do!) we MUST start learning how to survive off-planet RIGHT! NOW!

That's why we don't let people who think like you near applied ethics. You have this silly habbit of putting all your eggs in one basket then despair when your plan doesn't survive contact with reality.

We are talking about:

1. Somewhat modifying humans, on a planet already compatible with humans, to conditions we CAN predict fairly well. Creating more intelligent, more compassionate, a lot less aggressive humans (who like the warm too..)

vs

2. Finding a new Earth-like planet + traveling there + terraforming that planet + creating a highly different species of human, which could take hundreds or thousands of years, and an unimaginable amount of resources, IF we ever find such a planet in the first place. We may even need to create millions of new species for that planet too, all interconnected.

You seem to be intent on wiping out humanity (and you call it "applied ethics"). If you were capable of systems thinking, probability, proportions etc. as you claim, then you would realize that we need to accomplish the 1. first, and THEN turn to the 2. project.

[Atla]

AND the ability to develop the technology to do genetic engineering with the precision necessary to grow humans with gills (if the icecaps melt).

gills

[TimeSeeker]

1. Somewhat modifying humans, on a planet already compatible with humans, to conditions we CAN predict fairly well. Creating more intelligent, more compassionate, a lot less aggressive humans (who like the warm too..)

You think the warm is our problem? We have airconditioning. We can move further South or North. If that's the kind of engineering you had in mind - you have already lost the game.

That's very small-minded thinking on your part. What happens when the biosphere dies? What are said humans going to eat if natural food sources disappear? What are our energy sources? What happens to the economy and space exploration funding when society implodes?

Prediction is insufficient if you don't have control. Control to adapt at the speed required to stay ahead of the curve! And you are just delaying the inevitable.

The dinosaurs survived for 180 million years without going multi-planetary.

Not to mention that your plan is begging the question. HOW are you going to create more intelligent, compassionate, less aggressive humans in 200 years when we haven't pulled it off in 5000 years?

2. Finding a new Earth-like planet + traveling there + terraforming that planet + creating a highly different species of human, which could take hundreds or thousands of years, and an unimaginable amount of resources, IF we ever find such a planet in the first place. We may even need to create millions of new species for that planet too, all interconnected.

You seem to be intent on wiping out humanity (and you call it "applied ethics"). If you were capable of systems thinking, probability, proportions etc. as you claim, then you would realize that we need to accomplish the 1. first, and THEN turn to the 2. project.

Idiotic strawman. You seem to over-estimate the things you have control over. Like the behavior and habits of 7.5 billion (and growing) people.
I am yet to see any evidence that anybody is capable of exercising effective control over the mob and so we are heading for tragedy of the commons whether you like it or not.

Meanwhile - we already got to the moon. And we already have continuous human presence in space. The ISS.

So talk to me about probabilities again. We have ZERO evidence that we can change/control human behavior at global scale. And so what is your plan if that is indeed the case? Space is far more deterministic, even if more dangerous.

Your can't even look past your own biases to recognise who your allies in this battle are. You've put me in the "them" box already. Them idiots - part of the problem. Yet you think you are going to have better luck building a better society with the other 7.5 billion people

<insert serenity prayer here>

[TimeSeeker]

Every second we spend learning how to survive on a (scorched?) Earth is a second wasted not-learning how to survive off Earth.

On a long-enough time line we HAVE to get off this planet or we go the way of the dinosaurs. Why? Law of large numbers. Ergodic theory. Another asteroid is coming. Now or in 180 million years. The Sun is going supernova. End of the line!

And so I don't need to justify WHY we should be colonising the moon. You need to be justifying WHY NOT.

You are guilty of temporal discounting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

[Atla]

We are talking about:

1. Somewhat modifying humans, on a planet already compatible with humans, to conditions we CAN predict fairly well. Creating more intelligent, more compassionate, a lot less aggressive humans (who like the warm too..)

vs

2. Finding a new Earth-like planet + traveling there + terraforming that planet + creating a highly different species of human, which could take hundreds or thousands of years, and an unimaginable amount of resources, IF we ever find such a planet in the first place. We may even need to create millions of new species for that planet too, all interconnected.

You seem to be intent on wiping out humanity (and you call it "applied ethics"). If you were capable of systems thinking, probability, proportions etc. as you claim, then you would realize that we need to accomplish the 1. first, and THEN turn to the 2. project.

And again: I enjoy utopian sci-fi very much as well. But in the real world, if we can't survive on Earth, we totally won't be able to survive anywhere else either. First thing the current human species would do is destroy themselves there too.

Of course we wouldn't have colonies in the first place, humanity would need to come together for that and see through that long process. Only a superior (more intelligent, more compassionate, lot less agressive etc.) species could see through that.

So 1. is not only much simpler, maybe orders of magnitude simpler than 2., but it's a prerequisite.

[TimeSeeker]

So 1. is not only much simpler, maybe orders of magnitude simpler than 2., but it's a prerequisite.

You forgot 1.5 (or maybe 1.00001). Learning to survive off-planet.

There is no 2 without 1.00001.

Yes. 1 is simpler. It's also a dead end on a long-enough time line.

1 is also not a pre-requisite for 1.00001. We don't have to send all 7.5 Earthlings to the Moon.
Start with small numbers of pre-selected/engineered teams that can tolerate stress, think on their feet and function as a team.

This is why astronauts go through rigorous training and psych evaluations. Small-scale team/social dynamics is a science.

[Dubious]

You wrote: "It all boils down to consciousness being a journey of discovery." The journey of discovery for science reveals facts and how they relate to each other. What IYO does the conscious journey of discovery reveal and what is its value?

No one, whether collectively or individually comes back from a long pilgrimage the same as when he left.

Who knows what any journey of discovery reveals or its value? How can such even be denoted or quantified? To make any such assumptions is thoroughly naive!

Imagine yourself walking on a city street and being part of the crowd. You are aware of all the interactions taking place and become part of these interactions. This is our normal reactive consciousness.

Now take an elevator up to the first floor and look down at the crowd from a window. It will create a different impression. Now take the elevator up to the second floor and look out. The crowd holds your attention even less and you become more aware of the surrounding areas. The crowd is becoming part of a larger perspective. Go up to the third floor and the crowd becomes only a small part of a much larger perspective. This is what I mean by conscious discovery. It creates a human perspective within which the street the street perspective is included.

Astronauts experience it. It is now called the Overview Effect.

https://www.businessinsider.com/overvie ... ace-2015-8

When astronauts first saw Earth from afar in the Apollo 8 mission in 1968 — the US's second manned mission to the moon — they described a cognitive shift in awareness after seeing our planet "hanging in the void."

This state of mental clarity, called the "overview effect," occurs when you are flung so far away from Earth that you become totally overwhelmed and awed by the fragility and unity of life on our blue globe. It's the uncanny sense of understanding the "big picture," and of feeling connected yet bigger than the intricate processes bubbling on Earth.

The point I am making is that the increased obsession with dualism and fragmentation makes it increasingly difficult to experience the overview effect even through simple efforts of conscious attention. We cannot experience ourselves from a conscious or human perspective Yet without a human perspective I cannot see why anyone would wonder why we exist and why we are here. Such a person is too caught up in the world, in Plato's cave, to take these basic philosophical religious questions seriously. If we cannot contemplate these questions how can we expect to be anything other than animal Man serving a cosmic necessity along with the rest of organic life on earth?

I really don't know what you're arguing against. Conscious discovery is what it's all about anyways! What I objected to is both simple and obvious, namely, that one can't know in advance what conscious discovery will reveal or what it's value will ultimately be so there's no point in asking. Evidently you disagreed with that. Conscious discovery means only that, the will to discover and not what it will discover; that's what the journey is for.

It's akin to packing one's bags in Plato's cave (which you incessantly bring up) and heading for the exit to see what one can see not knowing in advance what will be seen.

I realize in advance this doesn't make any sense to you!

[Dubious]

It could go a few ways. The simplest would be that we die out but our machines/AI seed other worlds (or try to). Or AI itself may evolve and be the ones to carry on the torch, or perhaps cyborged humans. Or human minds be digitised and the people reconstructed on a safe world, without needing to worry about air, food, heat, cold, toxicity and so forth. There may well be Chinese or Indian arks since their Earthly lifestyles are often easy to improve upon.

In any event, it won't be "us" anymore whether or not we manage to pass the torch to some technological replacement of ourselves. With the way things have been developing that kind of development may not be such a bad thing.

...and if we don't make it in form or another, who cares!