Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:

Dubious wrote: ...unless there's another inhabitable Universe around the corner somewhere that we can fold our tents and silently move into. I suspect we'd welcome a big crunch then as much as we would welcome being crunched now. Leaches like to keep on leeching.

Other habitable worlds are a pipe dream for now. Rather than terraform Mars it makes more sense to re-green the Earth. One day the descendants of humans will have to find a new home but that time is most likely the best part of a billion years away.

True, the leech remark may not be completely justified but not far off the mark either. The glib response you quoted was meant to be either humorous or sarcastic, take your pick. My first response to you was the one prior that we cannot control nature ever. Try doing that and we'll be fighting another set of consequences each time, each one worse. That was the point, our position in the hierarchy of nature. I inferred nothing in the one you quoted.

As for journeys to other habitable worlds, that requires keeping this one healthy for a very long time to come. Re-greening the Earth requires far more massive infrastructures both economically and technologically then currently available. Even if we have the latter, the former would NEVER be available because EVERYONE would have to be included. How likely is that even at the cusp of catastrophe?

It truly is a pipe dream. The mother of all pipe dreams is that we are still going to be around in a billion years. With time distances like that who alive now or in 50 thousand years - another tenuous proposition - would even care? The only thing that idea is good for is another Hollywood Sci-fi movie. I regard these as the Pollyannaish ramblings of a Kurzweil who as a 'prophet' knows enough to make his money NOW.

There can be no doubt that Kurzweil is a dreamer but it is in the nature of the human journey to dream of future possibilities. The history of knowledge shows us that what is humanly conceivable is humanly achievable as long as it's not physically impossible. The hard part sometimes lies in making the distinction between what is physically possible and what isn't.

Obvious Leo wrote:The history of knowledge shows us that what is humanly conceivable is humanly achievable as long as it's not physically impossible.

That's whole point isn't it! As a linear path of advancement this statement is certainly obvious as it is for every other kind of intelligence out there. All you need to short circuit this straight logic path of what could have been or expect to be is to keep on practicing our seemingly ineradicable traits of expediency, greed, complacency, incompetency, etc., long enough where everything inimical to the environment merely accrues to the cost of doing business. But eventually everything mismanaged goes out of business, no longer a player in the biggest game of all but in damage control mode which can no-longer be controlled. To make it more realistic, the Coup d'état is not likely to even come from nature but only serve as catalyst for what we do to each other in consequence.

All this seems inconceivable but who would imply it's impossible based on what we've already seen of human nature? To my mind, it's much more intelligent to be prematurely pessimistic and preemptive rather then stupidly optimistic and ineffective after the fact. You don't want to carry every kind of 'educational experience' to its final conclusion.

But what the hell! Lets dream on à la Kurzweil for the dream may be as real as it gets.

Dubious wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:The history of knowledge shows us that what is humanly conceivable is humanly achievable as long as it's not physically impossible.

That's whole point isn't it! As a linear path of advancement this statement is certainly obvious as it is for every other kind of intelligence out there. All you need to short circuit this straight logic path of what could have been or expect to be is to keep on practicing our seemingly ineradicable traits of expediency, greed, complacency, incompetency, etc., long enough where everything inimical to the environment merely accrues to the cost of doing business. But eventually everything mismanaged goes out of business, no longer a player in the biggest game of all but in damage control mode which can no-longer be controlled. To make it more realistic, the Coup d'état is not likely to even come from nature but only serve as catalyst for what we do to each other in consequence.

All this seems inconceivable but who would imply it's impossible based on what we've already seen of human nature? To my mind, it's much more intelligent to be prematurely pessimistic and preemptive rather then stupidly optimistic and ineffective after the fact. You don't want to carry every kind of 'educational experience' to its final conclusion.

But what the hell! Lets dream on à la Kurzweil for the dream may be as real as it gets.

I can't really disagree with what you're saying but because I have grandchildren I incline towards the "rose-coloured glasses" view of the world as much as I possibly can. I figure that an old bloke is entitled to his self-delusions as long as he's willing to accept that in all likelihood that's all they are.

"The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated".....Michael Crichton

Risto wrote:Physicists generally agree that life doesn't have a purpose, the universe doesn't care what we do, if you will. This allows us to choose our own meaning or not choose a meaning at all. I'm not sure if a sane life is possible without a meaning. Maybe it's another discussion. If everyone can choose their own meaning, what is the best meaning to choose? Surely, not all meanings are equally valuable/meaningful?

Surely that meaning that provides the most meaningful existence is the meaning of existence. I mean, you know your purpose by the joy it brings you. Where you are happiest is where you belong. "What the world needs is people who have come alive."