Dalek Prime wrote:Greta wrote: Why would you want to give Seagull the finger for that comment?
For point number two (and for fun
). His intimation that the quality of one's pessimistic philosophy, considering his own bias, is somehow lesser, though realistically, it is closer to the truth, as pessimism weighs the good and bad, whilst not being blinded by unrealistic hope and wish fulfillment. That's why.
Do you think unpleasantness will end in the world? Do you think it will decrease significantly? History says that is incorrect, on average. So who is closer to the truth?
Ok, I get it. Cheers. The short answer to your first question is, "relatively yes".
Either optimism or pessimism seems unbalanced to me, an unnecessary emotional intrusion into an intellectual pursuit. There is much in reality that is creative and destructive.
We can't ignore the fact that incredible creation has taken place in the last 14b years, and that humanity represents as significant a developmental leap in nature as multicellularity and abiogenesis. The best of humanity represents a major technological, intellectual and moral advance on Earth (plus the potential ability to deflect potentially catastrophic asteroids). The rest of humanity (ie. us and most people) are obviously lagging behind our exemplars* in various degrees. However, it seems likely to me that at least some of humanity will survive okay through the coming environmental storm and that humanity will continue to develop morally and intellectually.
On the other hand, we should not ignore the fact that, rather than living in harmony, each piece of this wondrous, always-changing creation is compelled to maim, kill, eat, exploit and displace others. The result is that our joy is always tainted by the fact that it was most likely sourced from the suffering and death of other living things. Worse, it's clear that nature is not about the survival of the most moral, kind or grateful, but the survival of the biggest, meanest, smartest, most cunning and ruthless.
That's why I answered "I don't know". I prefer to focus on the positive because the thoughts we choose shape us and I've done enough negativity in the last 40 years to make Arnold Rimmer look like a self help guru, and I tired of the endless emotionally self-indulgent loops. At some point most days I'll think about the extreme suffering and death that I am lucky enough to not yet be experiencing, and I feel relieved and grateful.
These days I can't watch documentaries about non-domesticated mammals any more - it's just a litany of animal suffering due to displaced habitats, with them forced together in inhospitable domains to fight it out amongst themselves. Last night on a documentary i saw a mother elephant standing guard over her dying calf on the ground as a pride of lionesses gathered around them in a circle, seeing a ready meal for themselves and their cubs. The matriarch of the elephant clan had given up on the young first-time mother and calf, and the camera closed in on the gasping calf on the ground. t that point I lost it. Even typing this now and conjuring the image of the calf is tearing me up.
You can't help wondering why life has to be so cruel. The answer lies in a past that was even more savage and cruel than today's world. If pockets of civilisation survive the currently growing environmental and social problems, sustainability issues will eventually be a key driver of technology. Already scientists can turn non-animal material with protein-based "seeding" into meat. Humans are also increasingly isolating ourselves into compressed communities and increasingly becoming sedentary and housebound (because it's hard to get around in compressed communities). Increasingly living lives through screens showing us glimpses of humanity's larger mind (quite a zoo). By the time the dust settles and nature reconfigures to the new, hotter world, I think humans will have largely gotten themselves out of nature's way.
While humans have caused massive damage, if we manage to divert just one large asteroid on a collision course with Earth, we will have arguably done more good than harm to the biosphere. We'll at least have paid some of the debt. If we can spread DNA to other worlds you would have to figure it would be to the biosphere's advantage.
In the end, all that seems to exist is a stream of events flashing by as the universe metamorphoses. Things appear to be getting better, but at a rate so slow it's not of practical use to us, being subject to the smaller and chaotic circumstances of shorter time spans. The chaotic events occurring on our scale that help us we call "good", and vice versa.
*
obviously our "exemplars" are not our leaders. Morally, I'm thinking more of people working out in dangerous parts of the world creating safe havens for abandoned baby humans or animals.
). His intimation that the quality of one's pessimistic philosophy, considering his own bias, is somehow lesser, though realistically, it is closer to the truth, as pessimism weighs the good and bad, whilst not being blinded by unrealistic hope and wish fulfillment. That's why.
). His intimation that the quality of one's pessimistic philosophy, considering his own bias, is somehow lesser, though realistically, it is closer to the truth, as pessimism weighs the good and bad, whilst not being blinded by unrealistic hope and wish fulfillment. That's why.
