|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophical implications of extinction | |||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
bkelly,
First of all, thank you for your kind words. I am flattered. As to the matter of who I am, I will say this: knowing my name wouldn't add anything to what you already know about me from reading my posts. Some here call me 'Pars' - although I prefer the name to be used in full- and I've also been called 'Seven' sometimes. Please, let it suffice that I go under the pseudonym of Parasomnium. Anyway, a name is not what I am. I am the words that I write, the style I use, and the thoughts that I post. That's how you can know me. By my mind, not by my name.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
I really was not interested in your name, but your lifestyle (mental, not physical), your beliefs, etc. IOW: What causes you to write what you do? However, it is quite difficult for a person to describe themselves in the same manner that others see them. I will continue to read your posts and develop my impession of you.
And this is off topic so I will stop and understand that a reply is not appropiate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
did they ever really exist? Objectively, yes. Subjectively to themselves during their existence, yes. Subjectively to some other sentient species, not unless they encounter some traces of our life.
Do they exist now without colonization? I don't think I understand your question. If you mean do we exist if we have no way of surving an extinction event, then yes. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4578 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
1)Will humanity evolve on other planets? If so, do we (now)discuss this as our future, even though we will some day no longer exist? 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 antropocentrism. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Hi, Annafan! I was impressed with your post--especially after seeing it get the nod from Parasomnium in the POTM.
Parasomnium writes: You have explained a lot of concepts in a clarifying manner. It is one thing to ponder ones own mortality. This theme has been explored time and time again from all angles and from all beliefs by we the people. Notice how I labled us with a color? As a Bible guy, I read your post and immediately thought of several themes that you touched upon. Allow me to give you my comments: 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: Wow! I don't want to steer us away from philosophy into theology, but I guess that theology is part of my philosophy. The Bible said that the Jewish people were chosen from among all nations. Many *evil* cultures have sought to make this people extinct. Yet when this people makes other people extinct, it is argued that the God of the early Bible is cruel. Lets take this analogy a step further. As it is in Star Trek, there is a federation of planets. They have a prime directive. War happens, but is undesireable. It is similar to my Bible quote. On the one hand, brother is against brother. On the other hand, the offspring of the group will become as numerous as the sand on a beach, or stars in the sky. 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. PB writes: 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. so humans are unique?PB writes:
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. So my kids will grow based on random choices? How many choices do they have? Where will evolution take the human species? What will be the eventual outcome of intelligence on a universal scale?PB writes:
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. I can't help but think of Star Trek or Star Wars in the Tavern. Is what you are suggesting is that intelligence has an evolution?PB writes:
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). This reminds me of Abram, later known as Abraham.Gen 32:9-12-- Then Jacob prayed, "O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who said to me, 'Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,' I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups. Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children. But you have said, 'I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.'"Abraham was said to be the Father of all nations.Would there or could there be a home base for all lifeforms in the universe, or can it be inferred that each planet has its own unique life? PB writes:
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. Fascinating! In my "God" arguments, I notice that some people say that since God is not observable, He is a product of our collective and individual imaginations. Life outside of our planet is certainly possible, but is this life a product of our collective imagination or is this life absolute(absolutely possible)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. PB writes: 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. kinda like "ye shall be as gods?(tongue-in-cheek) PB writes:
That would be the ultimate "US": Life vs dead matter. This reminds me of the Christ analogy where one man becomes an ambassador for all of us into that area beyond mortality.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. Conclusion: Philosophically, I can relate to what you say. Annafan writes: And such optimism is what goes against the very idea of war in any form, whether it be war between kingdoms and nations, war between brothers, or war on a cosmic scale such as a war in heaven or a war between planets.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
jar writes: Ask the dinosaurs. Tweet!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Everything dies.
My personal history has made me a race traitor, gender traitor, sexual preference traitor, nationalism traitor: I prefer to be a person, not a citizen of any restricted airspace. I view my own demise, that of my nation, my planet, my kind with a sort of melancholy equanimity--inevitable, and inevitably underscoring how much breath and time we waste. I can identify more largely with life in general than our kind, but it seems no instance or class of it will continue forever, and life itself one day must pass from our universe, I suspect. James Dickey has a wonderful meditation on extinction. Here is an excerpt--I couldn't maintain his freewheeling stanza forms here, since spaces are redacted, so check the original for the beauty of it hot: from "For the Last Wolverine" But, small, filthy, unwinged,You will soon be crouching Alone, with maybe some dim racial notionOf being the last, but none of how much Your unnoticed going will mean: How much the timid poem needs The mindless explosion of your rage, The glutton's internal firethe elk's Heart in the belly, sprouting wings, The pact of the "blind swallowingThing," with himself, to eat The world, and not to be driven off it Until it is gone, even if it takes Forever. I take you as you are And make of you what I will,Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty Non-survivor. Lord, let me diebut not die Out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
poem writes: Why is it that people always feel immortality through their kids?
Lord, let me diebut not die Out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024