Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:....fill with what?...the emptiness inside of us?.

That's 'the emptiness inside of you', for the rest of us it's 'to fill an empty and cold Universe with life, laughter and children', barring biological issues then it's 'to fill an empty and cold Universe with life, laughter and to help children'.

.



To frame this in street terms - your post above reeks of bullshit.



We are vain, mean, selfish individuals. We are not filling the universe with love.

If you had children, you did it for selfish reasons. Plain & simple. We are made of greed.





.

Arising_uk wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:....fill with what?...the emptiness inside of us?.

That's 'the emptiness inside of you', for the rest of us it's 'to fill an empty and cold Universe with life, laughter and children', barring biological issues then it's 'to fill an empty and cold Universe with life, laughter and to help children'.

Maybe to play devil's advocate but...what does the universe care if there are more laughing, littering, pooping, children/soon to be laughing, littering, pooping adults in it? Or does it matter what the universe cares so long as we perpetuate our own species at the expense of every other life form? Right now population is out of control, which seems to leave a couple inevitable choices:

1. Humans keep multiplying until we eventually destroy the planet and ourselves along with it.

2. Human population gets curbed the hard way before we destroy the planet.

Or

3. Human population gets curbed the more painless way when people stop having so many babies, and hopefully eventually achieve some sort of equilibrium.

I vote for #3. What's your vote?

Gary Childress wrote:Maybe to play devil's advocate but...what does the universe care if there are more laughing, littering, pooping, children/soon to be laughing, littering, pooping adults in it? Or does it matter what the universe cares so long as we perpetuate our own species at the expense of every other life form? Right now population is out of control, which seems to leave a couple inevitable choices:

The Universe doesn't care, that's the point.

1. Humans keep multiplying until we eventually destroy the planet and ourselves along with it.

We can't destroy the planet. We might ruin the biosphere for us and many other species but just as many will adapt to whatever there is.

2. Human population gets curbed the hard way before we destroy the planet.

Maybe.

3. Human population gets curbed the more painless way when people stop having so many babies, and hopefully eventually achieve some sort of equilibrium.

Maybe.

I vote for #3. What's your vote?

I vote for #4. We expand-out and populate the Solar System and maybe in the long-run build Dyson Spheres or Clouds.

Arising_uk wrote:

I vote for #3. What's your vote?

I vote for #4. We expand-out and populate the Solar System and maybe in the long-run build Dyson Spheres or Clouds.

#4 would be great but I think it's more like fantasy. Dyson spheres and populating the solar system just aren't going to happen, not with our current physiology anyway. Whatever ends up populating our solar system probably won't be humans. I would think it behooves us to pay more attention to the planet we live on, be better custodians of it than bet on the Buck Rogers future.

Gary Childress wrote:#4 would be great but I think it's more like fantasy. Dyson spheres and populating the solar system just aren't going to happen, not with our current physiology anyway. Whatever ends up populating our solar system probably won't be humans. I would think it behooves us to pay more attention to the planet we live on, be better custodians of it than bet on the Buck Rogers future.

Given we're a short way away from being able to change our morphology in fairly big ways I think it not so fantastic an idea. The spheres and clouds are a long way off but if we refocussed away from these stupid rockets and went back to Dyson's Orion spacecraft the Solar System would be a pretty small place by now. Especially given that Alan Bond has now managed to get around the stupid mistake of the British govt and it looks like the Skylon may become a reality.

.





....................................................






THANK YOU Gary Childress.


A fellow voice of reason is soooooo refreshing.






.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:#4 would be great but I think it's more like fantasy. Dyson spheres and populating the solar system just aren't going to happen, not with our current physiology anyway. Whatever ends up populating our solar system probably won't be humans. I would think it behooves us to pay more attention to the planet we live on, be better custodians of it than bet on the Buck Rogers future.

Given we're a short way away from being able to change our morphology in fairly big ways I think it not so fantastic an idea. The spheres and clouds are a long way off but if we refocussed away from these stupid rockets and went back to Dyson's Orion spacecraft the Solar System would be a pretty small place by now. Especially given that Alan Bond has now managed to get around the stupid mistake of the British govt and it looks like the Skylon may become a reality.

So we just keep pumping out babies until the Earth is bursting at the seems and try to eject what extras we can to colonize rocks in space? And on the side we manipulate human genetics to create god only knows what that could survive the whole process? Brave New World here we come!

Yuk! Count me out of it. Technology has produced enough ethical monstrosities for me to handle. Good luck with that. Glad I don't have any kids to witness the atrocities of the future. I just hope I'm dead and cremated before all this comes into being.

Gary Childress wrote:So we just keep pumping out babies until the Earth is bursting at the seems and try to eject what extras we can to colonize rocks in space? And on the side we manipulate human genetics to create god only knows what that could survive the whole process? Brave New World here we come!

Not really as BNW was more as you'd wish, a stable, limited, organised population in equilibrium with the world. Last time I checked the projections were that we look like we'll stabilise around 9-10 billion given the resources so not to bursting and in fact far short of what we could accommodate if we built big, say archologies and such like. I don't see it as ejecting but more as exploring and pollinating and those 'rocks' could become arks of life rather than just being rocks, they'll also be very handy in keeping the planet in a better shape as at least we could do away with a large chunk of mining and could even move our polluting industries up there. The main problem with most of this is the development of new construction materials as the best route to near space would be a 'space elevator' otherwise its, hopefully, jets but I don't think they could handle the payloads needed.

Personally I think genetics is going to be interesting as it'll force some interesting questions about what it is to be human and some difficult ethical ones as well.

Yuk! Count me out of it. Technology has produced enough ethical monstrosities for me to handle. Good luck with that. Glad I don't have any kids to witness the atrocities of the future. I just hope I'm dead and cremated before all this comes into being.

They also won't be around to witness the wonders and apparently you hope not to be as well. Me, I'd love to be around to see it but doubt I will but wish my kids and any descendants all the best and have a slight touch of envy at the limitless possibilities that may arise. Of course, as you say, it all might go tits-up but what's new, as it's been bad and good in every era. Take me, along with my father we're the first generation of British people who, in the main, have never had to go to war and even he still grew up in one.

.



You're all over the place Sunshine.


Your logic cannot stand-up to someone like Gary Childress or myself on this one.


Best you just let this thread go. You're starting to sound reaching...



Someone called your bluff.




I'll give you 4/10 for reaching into your butt and pulling whatever ya got to throw onto the wall.






.

Ooo! Missed this one.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.To frame this in street terms - your post above reeks of bullshit.

Not surprised as you have the nose, eyes and attention of the gnu.

We are vain, mean, selfish individuals. We are not filling the universe with love.

Pay attention hippy! As where did I mention love?

We are also modest, generous and unselfish in equal measure, that you don't see this is because you are a gnu seized with existential angst created by your ridiculous 'philosophy'.

If you had children, you did it for selfish reasons. Plain & simple.

That you for once again demonstrating how thick the hide of a gnu is as you again ignore everything others have said to you about this subject and repeat your mantra. As for myself you have this arse-about-face as I had to overcome my vain, mean and selfish side to have children as I knew they can be a complete fucking pain and for sure my life from a selfish point of view would have been more comfortable and easy without them.

We are made of greed.[/size].

More gnu nonsense from you.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
You're all over the place Sunshine.

Show me where O'Gnu. As so far I've been discussing my fourth option with GC.

Your logic cannot stand-up to someone like Gary Childress or myself on this one.

Come back and talk to me about logic when you can construct a truth-table or prove a deduction valid or invalid. Until then I'll just muddle along thanks.

Best you just let this thread go. You're starting to sound reaching...

Given we're talking futurology I think reaching is the place to go.

Someone called your bluff.

Actually no, someone responded to my alternative option.

I'll give you 4/10 for reaching into your butt and pulling whatever ya got to throw onto the wall.[/size].

More scatology from you, your mind is a cesspit of contradiction, befuddlement and confusion.

I've told you before and I'll tell you again, the valuation of a gnu ridden with megalomania and existential angst holds no weight with me and even less interest.

All the best.

.




...........................................




People aren't that special. We are basically an algorithm running on a biologic computer.

It is entirely possible to emulate the human mind on a computer of sufficient capabilities, and that computer would be every bit as conscious as we are. Not only that, but it can be improved as to not have the problems we do.

People have this innate desire to be relevant and special, but we aren't.


Again, 8 billion is enough...


Any additions are not only selfish but irresponsible in this Third Industrial Revolution.




.

The only fear I have about producing humans is they might be like me, best to spray your seed against a barrier, or on your pillow or wherever it cannot be fecund. Humanity no offenc, it's not proper in da head.

If only we could develop, if only religion in any form could have brought us to some sort of mediocrity, mediocrity at least. The sad thing I think is we are quite mad, chaotic and stupid, and in my lifetime I don't see how it will change. It's a good job people die is all I can say, and memory is fickle? That's not such a good job, unless you're that guy who was strapped to a chair with gaffa tape with me, that is something I don't wish people to know...

.





................................................






...you wet my appetite...tell us more about this guy strapped to you with gaffa tape...whatever gaffa tape is...



.