Philosophical implications of extinction

Holmes writes: It is definitionally impossible that human life would ever evolve on other planets. In order to be human life it would have had to be one of us.

Holmes writes:Should we be concerned about there eventually being no homo sapiens due to a progression of mutations over time?

Parasomnium writes:A very well thought-out argument about the meaning of 'us', which could justifiably be called a statement about the meaning of life. What makes it really Post-Of-The-Month worthy is the delightful thought experiment which advances the central idea in a crystal clear manner while at the same time giving us a breathtaking vista on a future that simultaneously is and isn't 'ours'. Very well done!

Annafan writes:The interesting word here is "our".
As some have already pointed out, it is not to be expected that something identical to Homo Sapiens would re-evolve, or evolve on another planet. Evolution is for a large part 'historical'. The directions it takes are guided only in a very broad sense by the environment, but the details depend on a long chain of more or less random choices. Even the evolution of something that resembles our intelligence doesn't look like a given. However, I would argue that the meaning of "our" is subject to constant evolution (i.e. it becomes broader). As such, I think there is a good chance that we would indeed consider any extra-terrestrial lifeform, that looks like it will survive beyond our own extinction, to be "our" representatives. What I mean with "broadening", is the ever shrinking anthropocentrism. From a situation where white men couldn't even identify with people with a different skin-color, where slaves existed, where even women were considered inferior and where the uniqueness of earth and humans was a given, we have evolved to a situation where it is understood that all lifeforms share a common ancestor, and that earth is just a grain of sand in the universe. Although we already understand that *rationally*, it will probably take something like the discovery of (unrelated) extraterrestrial life to really feel an *emotional* bond with any other earthly lifeform. Once we have that "antipode" available, it will feel totally natural to include all earth-based lifeforms into a new form of "us", against "them" (=extraterrestrial life, not from the same common ancestor). Then, we could imagine a scenario where in a later stage still other, silicon-based, lifeforms would be discovered. This could lead to an inclusion of the other carbon-based lifeforms in an even broader "us", against the non-carbon based life.
Finally, let's say we would end up in a situation where we were completely sure that we were aware of ALL lifeforms in the universe. And that everything was extinct, except earth-based life and one example of (primitive?) silicon-based life on a distant planet. If we would then somehow know that earth-based life would come to an unavoidable end soon, I guess we would feel like the silicon based lifeforms would become "Ambassadors Of Life" for the entire universe, in our name. That would be the ultimate "US": Life vs dead matter.
Although of course it would be perfectly valid to argue that life would arise again But it's a bit hard to feel related to a rock, lol.

Annafan writes: If we would then somehow know that earth-based life would come to an unavoidable end soon, I guess we would feel like the silicon based lifeforms would become "Ambassadors Of Life" for the entire universe, in our name.

poem writes:Lord, let me die
but not die
Out.