Have You Ever Met a Human Being?

[sthitapragya]

Could it be that since we are the only empowered and intelligent species we know, we believe there is no other way? Whatever it maybe, even an accidental change like rapid industrialisation, we made the choice and we caused mass extinction. We cannot avoid the fact that as far as other species are concerned we are death personified. We are parasites whether we like it or not. We probably have the ability to recognise this and therefore change it, unlike a virus or a rat, but till we do change it, we are worse than rats because we knowingly made the choice to destroy other species.

The only way you can make the claim that humans are parasites is to also claim cyanobacteria to be a parasite during the Great Oxygenation Event, an extinction around 2.3 billion years ago http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ction.html

There's a few future scenarios, and each involves significant degradation of ecosystems and increased desertification:

1) A mass extinction that includes humans

2) A mass extinction with communities of survivalist humans remaining

3) as with #2, but with high tech, insulated, self-sufficient cities for the privileged

4) humanity changes its behaviour and become wise stewards of the planet and control population and consumption, with major ecosystems weakened but still surviving enough to bounce back quickly

5) aliens save us at the last minute akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey or Interstellar scenarios

I consider #4 and #5 to be laughably unlikely. Fantasy.

How do you see the probabilities? Have I missed any possibilities above? #4 is clearly the realms clutching at straws but included for the sake of completeness.

The cyanobacteria definitely were parasites. It is only in hind sight that we can see how beneficial there were for us. It might be likely that all the destruction we are causing now might be beneficial to some other species or even us down the line. But right now we are bad for the earth.

Of the scenarios given above, even 3 seems less likely because it would limit the possible cataclysmic events to only a few. 1 or 2 are inevitable. We just don't know when. There is also the possibility that we might be creating an environment for some deadly virus or bacteria which might end humans alone.

[Greta]

The cyanobacteria definitely were parasites. It is only in hind sight that we can see how beneficial there were for us. It might be likely that all the destruction we are causing now might be beneficial to some other species or even us down the line. But right now we are bad for the earth.

Of the scenarios given above, even 3 seems less likely because it would limit the possible cataclysmic events to only a few. 1 or 2 are inevitable. We just don't know when. There is also the possibility that we might be creating an environment for some deadly virus or bacteria which might end humans alone.

Humans have always predicted their demise. Always.

I don't see cyanobacteria as parasites, I see them as agents of change. Remember the article on imaginal discs I quoted some time ago? If not, I will reiterate. It's clear to me that all that has happened with the biosphere has been a fairly predictable process, just as any organism's, group's or ecosystem's processes of maturation. More connections. More intelligence. Each new era following extinctions end ups being dominated by ever smarter species.

I personally see #3 as about as sure as growing past puberty. It doesn't always happen but, failing exceptional and unusual events, there's a very good chance. Most informed observers see #1 and #2 as highly improbable, failing freak space collisions. There's many vulnerable populations but there are also many people with too far much capability, with thorough contingency plans, to be wiped out.

[sthitapragya]

The cyanobacteria definitely were parasites. It is only in hind sight that we can see how beneficial there were for us. It might be likely that all the destruction we are causing now might be beneficial to some other species or even us down the line. But right now we are bad for the earth.

Of the scenarios given above, even 3 seems less likely because it would limit the possible cataclysmic events to only a few. 1 or 2 are inevitable. We just don't know when. There is also the possibility that we might be creating an environment for some deadly virus or bacteria which might end humans alone.

Humans have always predicted their demise. Always.

I don't see cyanobacteria as parasites, I see them as agents of change. Remember the article on imaginal discs I quoted some time ago? If not, I will reiterate. It's clear to me that all that has happened with the biosphere has been a fairly predictable process, just as any organism's, group's or ecosystem's processes of maturation. More connections. More intelligence. Each new era following extinctions end ups being dominated by ever smarter species.

I personally see #3 as about as sure as growing past puberty. It doesn't always happen but, failing exceptional and unusual events, there's a very good chance. Most informed observers see #1 and #2 as highly improbable, failing freak space collisions. There's many vulnerable populations but there are also many people with too far much capability, with thorough contingency plans, to be wiped out.

Okay, I will give you that but again it would depend upon how far away in time the event is. However, with regard to the cyanobacteria you would have to consider the point of view of the anaerobic bacteria. From your point of view, any parasite which could possibly destroy humans but pave the way for future species to proliferate would not be a parasite, but an agent of change. Is that correct? If it is, I will give you that one too.

[Greta]

Okay, I will give you that but again it would depend upon how far away in time the event is. However, with regard to the cyanobacteria you would have to consider the point of view of the anaerobic bacteria. From your point of view, any parasite which could possibly destroy humans but pave the way for future species to proliferate would not be a parasite, but an agent of change. Is that correct? If it is, I will give you that one too.

All of that is fair enough to me. Change is disruptive. I doubt that the numerous cells we slew off as we grow and develop benefit much from our growth either. It's a bigger game.

Having worked in a few large organisations, it's hard to feel fondly towards the agents of change, ie. staff rationalisation consultants.

[Dontaskme]

No ''human'' has ever been seen.

The concept ''human'' is known, not seen....by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness.

[Greta]

No ''human'' has ever been seen.

The concept ''human'' is known, not seen....by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness.

A Charles Shultz quote for you: “I think I've discovered the secret of life -- you just hang around until you get used to it.”

[Dalek Prime]

No it's not. It's just not breeding, not killing extants. World of difference. As to another species possibly taking our place, not our issue. We correct the ones set before us.

This "correction" seems akin to young adults killing themselves because they no longer relate to the things of their youth and feel worthless.

What about a little hope? We've only been down from the trees for a short time and evolution, and nature generally, seems to always have surprises. To have no hope for humans based on current evidence is like having no hope that a teen can grow to maturity. We may become more mature.

But never mind humans, antinatalism would posit even cyanobacteria as a negative influence because the extinction they triggered resulted in multicellular organisms (culminating in the current crop of critters, including us). If not for their "interference" then life could have pointlessly continued consuming itself over and over in mindless microbial pococurantism until the Sun finally put them to rest in a billion years' time.

I'm not keen, Davros. The endless savagery of nature with no end in sight, no hope that something less harsh can come of it. Now that the hope for something better is here, now you want to snuff it out before it has a chance to get its at together? Tough judge.

It's probably all going to end badly in the end, #1 or #2. It would be a saving grace to avoid that final catastrophe, and the likely horrors that lead to it, with #6.

You think me a tough judge, but I'm all about mercy, and would spare that sorrow.

Seriously Greta, why do you assume it is such a tragedy, when things are not created? It's your imagined tragedy, not that which never was. It's just projected sentiment.

'If a desert island is no tragedy, why is a deserted universe?'
-- Peter Wessell Zapffe.

Have you read his essay here? I don't recall whether I posted it for you before.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah

[Greta]

Seriously Greta, why do you assume it is such a tragedy, when things are not created? It's your imagined tragedy, not that which never was. It's just projected sentiment.

This will seem like Lacewing's nicked my login but it is the universe itself projecting that sentiment. The universe is also expressing antinatalist views, but you have to admit that the ayes have it in a landslide. This "projected sentiment" is a natural and instinctive part of being alive.

Life wants to persist, and sadness is clearly an instinctive response of intelligent, empathetic beings to the pointless snuffing out of life's journey. There's just a few exceptions around profit, power, political ideologies, food, shelter, career prospects, comfort, excitement, fun, collateral damage and vandalism, but aside from those teensy exceptions, life very much values life!

[Dalek Prime]

Seriously Greta, why do you assume it is such a tragedy, when things are not created? It's your imagined tragedy, not that which never was. It's just projected sentiment.

This will seem like Lacewing's nicked my login but it is the universe itself projecting that sentiment. The universe is also expressing antinatalist views, but you have to admit that the ayes have it in a landslide. This "projected sentiment" is a natural and instinctive part of being alive.

Life wants to persist, and sadness is clearly an instinctive response of intelligent, empathetic beings to the pointless snuffing out of life's journey. There's just a few exceptions around profit, power, political ideologies, food, shelter, career prospects, comfort, excitement, fun, collateral damage and vandalism, but aside from those teensy exceptions, life very much values life!

Well, I think you underestimate how much shit most go through, even when a life goes otherwise 'well', but yes, we can agree that extants more often than not want to persist into the future, though I'll add, for all the wrong reasons, and doing it on the backs of potentials who never needed to be, and don't have the choice. It's not us, in all likelihood, that will end in a great extinction, but potentials. And it won't be pretty. I'd still save them that, and the leadup to.

[Dubious]

...but it is the universe itself projecting that sentiment. The universe is also expressing antinatalist views, but you have to admit that the ayes have it in a landslide. This "projected sentiment" is a natural and instinctive part of being alive.

This is absolute earth centered anthropomorphism. The universe or any universe is thoroughly indifferent and in-cognizant of any life existing within it. It contains NO expression of either antinatalist or pro-life sentiments but once again only proves our own ceaseless will to project an idea which only exists as an instinct.

Life wants to persist, and sadness is clearly an instinctive response of intelligent, empathetic beings to the pointless snuffing out of life's journey.

This sentiment and it's feedback is essential if life is to persist and succeed in a universe that's totally devoid of caring and wouldn't even know how to care. There is no "Master" external to it that ever gave it that mandate.

[Greta]

Well, I think you underestimate how much shit most go through, even when a life goes otherwise 'well', but yes, we can agree that extants more often than not want to persist into the future, though I'll add, for all the wrong reasons, and doing it on the backs of potentials who never needed to be, and don't have the choice. It's not us, in all likelihood, that will end in a great extinction, but potentials. And it won't be pretty. I'd still save them that, and the leadup to.

It would seem that the potentials of life are needed because they are present. For instance, if not for vulcanism throwing huge amounts of unattached hydrogen atoms on to the surface of the Earth, all champing at the bit to combine with oxygen atoms, then all this wouldn't have happened. But that vulcanism did occur - with all the other follow-on results. My guess is that the situation of the Earth is inevitable under the right conditions.

As for what is "pretty" or not, doesn't that depend on whether you are the consumer or the consumed?

Joy, suffering and absurdity were not always part of life and may not always be. The fat lady has not yet sung. Suffering may yet be transcended without having to also "transcend" life. A lot can happen in a few hundred million years.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, I think you underestimate how much shit most go through, even when a life goes otherwise 'well', but yes, we can agree that extants more often than not want to persist into the future, though I'll add, for all the wrong reasons, and doing it on the backs of potentials who never needed to be, and don't have the choice. It's not us, in all likelihood, that will end in a great extinction, but potentials. And it won't be pretty. I'd still save them that, and the leadup to.

It would seem that the potentials of life are needed because they are present. For instance, if not for vulcanism throwing huge amounts of unattached hydrogen atoms on to the surface of the Earth, all champing at the bit to combine with oxygen atoms, then all this wouldn't have happened. But that vulcanism did occur - with all the other follow-on results. My guess is that the situation of the Earth is inevitable under the right conditions.

As for what is "pretty" or not, doesn't that depend on whether you are the consumer or the consumed?

Joy, suffering and absurdity were not always part of life and may not always be. The fat lady has not yet sung. Suffering may yet be transcended without having to also "transcend" life. A lot can happen in a few hundred million years.

With the interim suffering for it. A few hundred million years will produce trillion of minds suffering, when there was no need for it. And it will still end badly. You're willing to sacrifice many for a dream; a chance at future happiness. I'm not. There's no prize waiting for the last of us. No victory march. Just a pitiable end that no one will recall.

(Personally, there is no way humanity will last that long anyways, but thats neither here nor there.)

Btw, presence does not conclude necessity.

PS. Don't worry.You'll get your way in the end anyways. People will always breed and create more minds. I just witnessed it with two young drunks at a bar. You should hear the desperate, idiotic prattle, after dropping their drinks in the back alley, and getting it on. And their descendants will do the same.

[Greta]

...but it is the universe itself projecting that sentiment. The universe is also expressing antinatalist views, but you have to admit that the ayes have it in a landslide. This "projected sentiment" is a natural and instinctive part of being alive.

This is absolute earth centered anthropomorphism. The universe or any universe is thoroughly indifferent and in-cognizant of any life existing within it. It contains NO expression of either antinatalist or pro-life sentiments but once again only proves our own ceaseless will to project an idea which only exists as an instinct.

Almost, but no cigar. If the universe is thoroughly indifferent to life it wouldn't have missed some spots just about here that are far from indifferent.

We are part of the universe. I know that sounds new age but it's a simple statement of fact. As I always like to remember - there is a galaxy with a solar system with a planet that has a small amount of fizz on its very surface that we call "life". This thin, fizzy film cares a great deal about itself, or at least it's own patch.

Life wants to persist, and sadness is clearly an instinctive response of intelligent, empathetic beings to the pointless snuffing out of life's journey.

This sentiment and it's feedback is essential if life is to persist and succeed in a universe that's totally devoid of caring and wouldn't even know how to care. There is no "Master" external to it that ever gave it that mandate.

Sure. Note that every system is necessarily subject to larger, containing systems (just as humans are subject to the biosphere, even if we pretend we aren't). These containing systems don't tend to fret overmuch about their innards unless there's a malfunction. Most governments don't care much about its individuals, so gaining sympathy from our geological and cosmological "masters" is going to be an uphill battle :)

You could say that Margaret Thatcher's approach to governance was somewhat in harmony with the universe. The only issue there is that our societies exist solely for the purpose of protecting us from that vast, cold, uncaring cosmos.

[Dubious]

This is absolute earth centered anthropomorphism. The universe or any universe is thoroughly indifferent and in-cognizant of any life existing within it. It contains NO expression of either antinatalist or pro-life sentiments but once again only proves our own ceaseless will to project an idea which only exists as an instinct.

Almost, but no cigar. If the universe is thoroughly indifferent to life it wouldn't have missed some spots just about here that are far from indifferent.

Can't quite see how that follows if I understand you correctly. Within an entity like the universe and its innumerable processes there are bound to be some surprises - call it happenstance - in which there can be unique progressions that looks back on itself to determine what created it and the context of its creation. Just because there are islands of life due to some very local manifestations of process which allows it to happen doesn't otherwise negate a universe of zero degree kelvin indifference.

We are part of the universe. I know that sounds new age but it's a simple statement of fact.

It's not really New Age. The Ancients already understood this only "their" universe was much smaller. What cannot be defined as a whole has to be a part of something else to which the Universe itself may be subject.

As I always like to remember - there is a galaxy with a solar system with a planet that has a small amount of fizz on its very surface that we call "life". This thin, fizzy film cares a great deal about itself, or at least it's own patch.

Of course it cares about itself! If it didn't it would have had far less chance of survival in a universe where everything is expendable.

This sentiment and it's feedback is essential if life is to persist and succeed in a universe that's totally devoid of caring and wouldn't even know how to care. There is no "Master" external to it that ever gave it that mandate.

Sure. Note that every system is necessarily subject to larger, containing systems (just as humans are subject to the biosphere, even if we pretend we aren't). These containing systems don't tend to fret overmuch about their innards unless there's a malfunction. Most governments don't care much about its individuals, so gaining sympathy from our geological and cosmological "masters" is going to be an uphill battle

You could say that Margaret Thatcher's approach to governance was somewhat in harmony with the universe. The only issue there is that our societies exist solely for the purpose of protecting us from that vast, cold, uncaring cosmos.

I like your analogy. It's true, larger entities usually have very little empathy for its subsets or in this case its shareholders called citizens.

[Greta]

With the interim suffering for it. A few hundred million years will produce trillion of minds suffering, when there was no need for it. And it will still end badly.

If you can play Nostradamus then so can I. I predict that it will end better than our small human minds can comprehend. But what do we know?

You're willing to sacrifice many for a dream; a chance at future happiness.

Me? I didn't do anything! Honest!

There's no prize waiting for the last of us. No victory march. Just a pitiable end that no one will recall.

... Btw, presence does not conclude necessity.

So ... are you The Oracle, or maybe the Architect?

Obviously "necessity" doesn't relate to the welfare of post-apes. We both know it's more inevitability than necessity - the knock-on effect of prior processes. If our biosphere doesn't persist beyond the Sun's expansion then probabilities suggest that life will pop up elsewhere, numerous times, over a hundreds of billions of years. The law of averages also suggests that some life will become intelligent, and that some of those intelligent species will evolve into exponentially more advanced entities than we are. Some may even be our descendants in the far future.

What if life manages to persist and conquer suffering over a very long time? Happily living sustainably for another hundred billion years or more through advanced technology? The life-bearing period of the universe, the Stelliferous Era, is thought to possibly last for a trillion years. Maybe what we are experiencing now is just a very early and short-lived stage of the universe's development?