I think it's pretty fashionable to be pessimistic about the notion of social improvement. — Tom Storm
That doesn't mean we should not try to solve the problems we have. In some cases, we will succeed; in other cases we will fail; some we will not even recognize. — Ludwig V
What else? — Ludwig V
So some people are developing space flight and even colonization (not to mention exploitation) of the moon and the planets while war, famine and disease still rampage around the only planet we actually live on. — Ludwig V
some problems are currently considered good things and some good things are currently considered problematic. — Benj96
Out of curiosity, if you had to discern a direction, point or "aim" of humanity ie. "where we are going" - what would you say that is? — Benj96
Or furthermore, would you say evolution doesn't have a purpose its running towards but instead it's purpose is behind it - ie what it comes from out of pure neccesity? — Benj96
Should we look to home first? Should earthly problems be our sole perogative before choosing to undertake endeavours further afield? Or is taking endeavours towards space travel a neccesity to address the problems at home, even if just to inspire and motivate perhaps? — Benj96
Anything that doesn't promote those is decoration - which is not necessarily a bad thing. — Ludwig V
What determined the beard as masculine rather than feminine? — Benj96
As long as it doesn't detract from survival outside of mating it stays. — Benj96
We have innovated, invented and advanced technology, health and social systems consistently for millenia in order to combat these problems.
So it seems we should have less problems now than ever before. When do we reach utopia as if problems are decreasing in number and severity, then surely utopia is just around the corner? — Benj96
Beards are said to give their wearers an aura of sagacity and power. but I'm not sure to what extent. They seem to communicate 'something' beyond mere hairiness. — BC
"Scarcity" seems the fundamental driver of dominance hierarchies and imperialism that no amount of "progress" has put an end to or significantly diminished — 180 Proof
In the last several millennia, 'we' have not progressed beyond a scarcity-based, anxiety-driven 'global civilization', — 180 Proof
I can only imagine this is because we have not yet managed to make ourselves or any of our creations immortal — Benj96
Still parasitic and predatory, on a much larger scale. https://www.sfsite.com/09a/dan159.htmPerhaps this is why many imaginings of the future is an intergalactic, multiplanetary artifical sentience that feeds off the most long-lived and sustainable energy sources: perhaps deriving energy not even from starlight which is finite, but even more fundamental forces like gravity.
For some the prospect that everything may being fundamentally pointless (that progress in the end is futile) is a source of great sadness/depression. — Benj96
Still parasitic and predatory, on a much larger scale. — Vera Mont
The Really Big Problem is considering ourselves the summit and omega of all life in the universe, with an absolute, uncontested (except by our own brethren) right to exploit it, suck it dry and toss it away. — Vera Mont
Everything is 'ultimately' pointless since entropy is a fundamental law of the universe. — ChatteringMonkey
As we are discovering, there are limits to how much energy the planetary system can manage. Trillions of tons of energetic coal and oil have turned into an existential threat. — BC
Well lets not forget that the energy the earth receives every second, minute, hour, day, week etc from the sun makes our fossil fuel derived energy look like a speck of dust on the blackboard. — Benj96
To become sustainable there is a great irony - in that we must return to what was already before - a 100% renewable and recyclable energy status of living systems.
There is no limit to thr energy we can harness as long as that energy harnessing isn't directly dangerous to our existence (the air we breath, the water we drink m, the food we eat etc). — Benj96
Is the level of organisation required to produce life the antithesis of entropy? Who knows. — Benj96
There is no limit to thr energy we can harness as long as that energy harnessing isn't directly dangerous to our existence (the air we breath, the water we drink m, the food we eat etc). — Benj96
Well everything that utilises energy can be considered parasitic or predatory when compared to a universe where energy is never used by life, and thus life does not exist. — Benj96
doesn't sound renewable and recyclable. Intergalactic? We can calculate how much natural resources and energy it takes for three or four humans to escape the gravity of Earth. I don't see using gravity for that. We may be able to calculate how much it would take to travel to another solar system. None of that material, human effort or energy is ever coming back. But I don't know if anyone can calculate what it would take to travel to another galaxy, not even Andromeda, which is already heading our way.Perhaps this is why many imaginings of the future is an intergalactic, multiplanetary artifical sentience that feeds off the most long-lived and sustainable energy sources: perhaps deriving energy not even from starlight which is finite, but even more fundamental forces like gravity. — Benj96
Let's not forget that before us some other animal in our direct ancestral line was the most sophisticated. — Benj96
To become sustainable there is a great irony - in that we must return to what was already before - a 100% renewable and recyclable energy status of living systems. — Benj96
None of them was in a position to wipe out all life on Earth. None of them gave itself a God-given right to do so. — Vera Mont
We as humans have great potential. The quality of that potential can be good or bad and depends on our awareness/education or understanding of the world and then what we choose to do with that knowledge. What actions we convert it into. — Benj96
However, there is always 2 sides to every coin. — Benj96
We are just as capable of increasing the diversity and stability of ecosystems as we are to destroy them. — Benj96
This probably why they were less interested in imposing capitalist, materialistic and possessive behaviours on other civilizations by conquering and colonialism. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.