Have You Ever Met a Human Being?

[Greta]

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.

It's still not quite "zero degree kelvin indifference". I'm not indifferent and I don't think I'm alone.

[sthitapragya]

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.

It's still not quite "zero degree kelvin indifference". I'm not indifferent and I don't think I'm alone.

Greta, but that could be because you are looking at it from a biased perspective. You have a vested interest in life. But even if you look at statistics, 99.9% of all species every created are extinct. That speaks for something, doesn't it? Life exists now. But from the perspective of the universe, it really makes no difference if life exists or not, or even if anything exists or not. A lack of indifference would suggest a slight interest. How can the universe show interest in any particular thing? Is it living and breathing and prone to emotions?

[Dubious]

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.

It's still not quite "zero degree kelvin indifference". I'm not indifferent and I don't think I'm alone.

The question is not whether any minuscule side effect called life is indifferent or not as encapsulated in you, me or anyone; it's whether the universe itself is completely indifferent to any life or consciousness it contains. The 'roots' of any tree will never know how high it's going to grow.

[Greta]

It's still not quite "zero degree kelvin indifference". I'm not indifferent and I don't think I'm alone.

Greta, but that could be because you are looking at it from a biased perspective. You have a vested interest in life. But even if you look at statistics, 99.9% of all species every created are extinct. That speaks for something, doesn't it? Life exists now. But from the perspective of the universe, it really makes no difference if life exists or not, or even if anything exists or not. A lack of indifference would suggest a slight interest. How can the universe show interest in any particular thing? Is it living and breathing and prone to emotions?

Nonetheless, I am still a part of the universe and I am not alone in this! There are many parts of the universe with a "biased perspective" and, I suspect, many more popping up as we speak. When considering what interest the universe has in us, consider what interest animals have in their microflora. None - it all just happens.

Sure, humans could become extinct too, maybe replaced by our own inventions, although we do appear to be game-changers, a completely unprecedented phenomenon in the biosphere, although our leadup through the primate order would seem fairly usual. It's our eusocial structures. Ants and other eusocial special are similarly dominant in their domains and we are the first large create to create large specialised societies. A combination of size, intelligence and eusociality has lead to an emergence that has the potential - and, weirdly, the most realistic potential - to continue the story of life on Earth.

[Greta]

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.

It's still not quite "zero degree kelvin indifference". I'm not indifferent and I don't think I'm alone.

The question is not whether any minuscule side effect called life is indifferent or not as encapsulated in you, me or anyone; it's whether the universe itself is completely indifferent to any life or consciousness it contains. The 'roots' of any tree will never know how high it's going to grow.

These "minuscule side effects" are part of the universe too, Dubious, as much a part as stars. planets, moons, asteroids, comets, black holes, gas clouds etc. Scarcity is not cause for invalidation, just as phosphorus is just as much a part of the universe as helium, even though very much less prevalent.

[Dalek Prime]

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?

Fine. It's all coming up roses. Enjoy, Greta.

[Dubious]

The question is not whether any minuscule side effect called life is indifferent or not as encapsulated in you, me or anyone; it's whether the universe itself is completely indifferent to any life or consciousness it contains. The 'roots' of any tree will never know how high it's going to grow.

These "minuscule side effects" are part of the universe too, Dubious, as much a part as stars. planets, moons, asteroids, comets, black holes, gas clouds etc. Scarcity is not cause for invalidation, just as phosphorus is just as much a part of the universe as helium, even though very much less prevalent.

If there's only one certainty it's that we are part of the universe; if not what would we be a part of? But our survival within it is of no concern to it as reiterated a virtual infinity of times based on what we know if it already. It's no less true for any of its constituents Earth included if all the human DNA on its surface is no more.

It's natural to project our values forward into a much grander whole and 'arrange' a kind of destiny for it but this only connotes our myths and projections not unlike those who still find the God idea comforting. The 'philosophication' and projection of our values upon the universe is only that and nothing more though natural for a consciousness seeking to anthropomorphize itself into some kind of cosmic significance.

[Greta]

The question is not whether any minuscule side effect called life is indifferent or not as encapsulated in you, me or anyone; it's whether the universe itself is completely indifferent to any life or consciousness it contains. The 'roots' of any tree will never know how high it's going to grow.

These "minuscule side effects" are part of the universe too, Dubious, as much a part as stars. planets, moons, asteroids, comets, black holes, gas clouds etc. Scarcity is not cause for invalidation, just as phosphorus is just as much a part of the universe as helium, even though very much less prevalent.

If there's only one certainty it's that we are part of the universe; if not what would we be a part of? But our survival within it is of no concern to it as reiterated a virtual infinity of times based on what we know if it already. It's no less true for any of its constituents Earth included if all the human DNA on its surface is no more.

I'd better clarify a couple of things:

1) Cosmic objects do not care about us

2) Other animals and plants don't care about us (aside from pets)

3) Most other humans don't care about us

4) We don't care about our cells or bacteria

5) They don't care about their chemical elements

6) ... who don't care about their subatomic particles.

The important parts to us are italicised.

It's natural to project our values forward into a much grander whole and 'arrange' a kind of destiny for it but this only connotes our myths and projections not unlike those who still find the God idea comforting. The 'philosophication' and projection of our values upon the universe is only that and nothing more though natural for a consciousness seeking to anthropomorphize itself into some kind of cosmic significance.

God is a non starter here. Just a distraction. In truth, I am the one facing reality without emotion. Most people are so caught up in fear and frustration at humanity's wastefulness, inequity and unsustainable circumstances that they cannot think clearly about the big picture.

It seems to me that people cannot bear to consider is that the selfish bastards at the top of the tree and their technology who appear to be the future of humanity - and the rest of us are just expendable resources to help them persist. It's like the bad guys winning at the movies - and many simply can't countenance it. So instead we vent our preferred result - that they be destroyed with the rest of us. I don't think they will be so unprepared.

Basically the wealthy are doing to most of humanity when humanity did to the animals - they are taking a disproportionate amount of resources and using the masses as tools and fodder for their systems.

So why am I not outraged at the idea of this selfish subset of humanity being our destiny? I cannot imagine that, the kind of disasters that will befall the poorest, weakest and unluckiest will leave even the hard-hearted super-wealthy untouched, aside from the very most psychopathic. I do think that humanity can and does learn moral lessons from history, although it's slow going due to frequent backwards steps. So I'm optimistic, not based on emotion, but the evidence so far.

[Greta]

Fine. It's all coming up roses. Enjoy, Greta.

Davros, my reply to Dubious covers it. I'm just not being emotional about it, probably because of the weird autistic thing I have that's done such wonders for my social life

As I said earlier, many are dismayed by humanity and think it would be "fair" if we went extinct - especially the fat cats - so that nature can continue its simple existence with no option of respite from the savagery.

I think it far more likely that the well-resourced and located bad guys are going to win, although not without cost. I also think that, over time, they can and will develop morally, and that may become an existential imperative.

[Dalek Prime]

Fine. It's all coming up roses. Enjoy, Greta.

Davros, my reply to Dubious covers it. I'm just not being emotional about it, probably because of the weird autistic thing I have that's done such wonders for my social life

We disagree. I don't hold your opinion against you. Where we really differ is based upon preference and choice, as well as the optimism/pessismism divide.

[Arising_uk]

...
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.

We keep plodding along at an incredible rate, build pusher-plate ships, mine the Solar System and do the refining in space thus sparing the environment and turn the planet over to food production..

[Greta]

Fine. It's all coming up roses. Enjoy, Greta.

Davros, my reply to Dubious covers it. I'm just not being emotional about it, probably because of the weird autistic thing I have that's done such wonders for my social life

We disagree. I don't hold your opinion against you. Where we really differ is based upon preference and choice, as well as the optimism/pessismism divide.

It may be your preference. I'm just obsessed with logic and I've said where my logic takes me when I consider all of the evidence.

I also once despised humanity but I came to see that resentment as the result of seeing humanity as "other". Bullying alien parasites chomping our way through balanced, beautiful and innocent nature. That's the perspective from inside our human skulls - that we are apart rather than a part. I believe that that perspective effect is our evolved filters at play, focusing on that which we might be able to control rather than speculate about our future replacements in the far future.

Thankfully, I am not currently occupied fending off wild animals or unwanted suitors so I am free to speculate. Perhaps a key area is a lack of appreciation of how great the technological gulf is between what is happening in the elite parts of society and for the rest of us.

We don't yet appreciate just how empowered they are or how well equipped they are to handle the expected environmental challenges. Their colluding polity and media are happily hanging the little people out to dry slowly because we are still needed. Rest assured, they are working hard at using technology to free themselves from the need for people, ecosystems and arable land. They are insulating themselves, securing their future and that of our systems, at the expense of everything else. Not all of them are ignorant and there has surely been, and will be, significant contingency planning on an ongoing basis done.

[Dalek Prime]

Davros, my reply to Dubious covers it. I'm just not being emotional about it, probably because of the weird autistic thing I have that's done such wonders for my social life

We disagree. I don't hold your opinion against you. Where we really differ is based upon preference and choice, as well as the optimism/pessismism divide.

It may be your preference. I'm just obsessed with logic and I've said where my logic takes me when I consider all of the evidence.

I also once despised humanity but I came to see that resentment as the result of seeing humanity as "other". Bullying alien parasites chomping our way through balanced, beautiful and innocent nature. That's the perspective from inside our human skulls - that we are apart rather than a part. I believe that that perspective effect is our evolved filters at play, focusing on that which we might be able to control rather than speculate about our future replacements in the far future.

Thankfully, I am not currently occupied fending off wild animals or unwanted suitors so I am free to speculate. Perhaps a key area is a lack of appreciation of how great the technological gulf is between what is happening in the elite parts of society and for the rest of us.

We don't yet appreciate just how empowered they are or how well equipped they are to handle the expected environmental challenges. Their colluding polity and media are happily hanging the little people out to dry slowly because we are still needed. Rest assured, they are working hard at using technology to free themselves from the need for people, ecosystems and arable land. They are insulating themselves, securing their future and that of our systems, at the expense of everything else. Not all of them are ignorant and there has surely been, and will be, significant contingency planning on an ongoing basis done.

My logic takes me the other way. I don't despise humanity, though I'm certainly not its proponent either. It will do what it wants (without my genetics, thankfully). I just don't see its necessity, and care more for the one crying for release, than all the satisfied customers. (Negative preference utilitarianism.) And never forget, Greta. Mankind doesn't progress in a smooth curve up. It's cyclical., and goes backwards as well.

[Greta]

...
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.

We keep plodding along at an incredible rate, build pusher-plate ships, mine the Solar System and do the refining in space thus sparing the environment and turn the planet over to food production..

#7

As per my earlier posts, I'd be more inclined to refer to "they" rather than "we", although in a best case scenario at least most will pull through and continue, albeit in ever more compressed conditions. It's expected that some areas around the equator will become uninhabitable and climate refugees will have to travel north and south.

Some concerns with #7 could be the growing number of wicked pollution, population, infrastructure and ecosystem problems we face in the interim, and the costs and risks of space travel.

[Greta]

... and care more for the one crying for release, than all the satisfied customers. (Negative preference utilitarianism.)

I'm not sure what I prefer or what is right as regards the big picture, aside from preferring life (that is not constant suffering with no hope of release) to death. I guess that's my bias, but I'm probably not Robyn Crusoe there.

I'm just considering what appears to be the case. I still vote for humanitarian and environmentally minded political parties because I think it's important to slow population, environmental damage and inequity as much as possible. However, with population and resource pressures leading to wars (these wars aren't about religion, they are about resources and money) the processes are accelerating. That may be an issue for option #7.