No. I'm saying 'nature inherently lacks significance, therefore natural creatures inherently lack significance, and human beings are cognizant of this lack in so far as we feel insignificant.' — 180 Proof

Oh, ok. That’s interesting, because people usually have no problem ascribing significance to nature, although none exists. I think the fact that the naturalistic fallacy (and it’s relatives) even exist demonstrates that. We tend to value whatever is natural.

NO. — Outlander

Why do you seem so sure? IF we had the ability to spread to other planets, we probably wouldn’t feel like our species is doomed to extinction. I think having the ability to realistically hope for a better tomorrow, if not for ourselves, then for others, would certainly lessen our feelings of insignificance.

We are confined to this doomed planet out of compassion. — Outlander

Care to explain? Compassion for whom?

The only place left where the existence of human life and the suffering we deal and tolerate is tolerable due to the fact God doesn't pay much attention here. — Outlander

This is rhetoric right? Or do you believe there is a God that simply ignores us? Either way, I don’t see how being ignored by God makes life tolerable.

Why do you seem so sure? IF we had the ability to spread to other planets, we probably wouldn’t feel like our species is doomed to extinction. I think having the ability to realistically hope for a better tomorrow, if not for ourselves, then for others, would certainly lessen our feelings of insignificance. — Pinprick

Alcohol. However onto the next point of having a greater ability to create life in multiple places.. well, I'm reminded of an old saying "if you can't make yourself happy, how can you expect to (or why should others believe you can) make others happy" or perhaps even "home is where the heart is" or even as far as something along the lines of (I can't recall any catchy metaphor or witty saying at present) failing to address a problem from it's source is not solved by simply creating more environments where the same problem simply has more chances or opportunity to somehow resolve itself on its own simply because it does not have any more chances here nor there. You can't kick the can down the road per se however I suppose your premise is proven at least somewhat by use of decoys and body doubles. Like how presidents often travel in one of two airliners or vehicles traveling in unison. Beyond all that however, how is life of a species on another planet even in an entirely different galaxy any more hope other than trivial hope? We can just as easily be destroyed by a black hole, cosmic ray burst, star explosion/implosion, asteroid, heat death of the universe, or any other cosmic phenomena one could imagine. Furthermore, if one errs on the side of evolution, life will just re-create itself, perhaps even better here, so why worry about it so much? Selfishness. Myopia. Fear. Arrogance. Ignorance. That is all that will be "spread" throughout the universe if your maniacal plot of galactic domination ever comes to fruition.

Care to explain? Compassion for whom? — Pinprick

Just a theory. Highly religious. "Fallen world", etc

This is rhetoric right? Or do you believe there is a God that simply ignores us? Either way, I don’t see how being ignored by God makes life tolerable. — Pinprick

Could be. I wouldn't know for certain. It's not about it being tolerable, it's about it simply being able to continue to exist. Again, just a theory.

Shifting their morphology plays a key role in their survival, creating bulkier bodies when put into environments where more developed tadpoles were present, to make it difficult for the individuals to swallow them whole. — Wikipedia

Size-structured cannibalism is cannibalism in which older, larger, more mature individuals consume smaller, younger conspecifics. — Wikipedia

I guess the takeaway is it (size) matters

Then again,

Big things come in small packages. — Anon

and

I don't know how far this is true but it's said that the world's biggest killer is the humble mosquito.

The most deadly animal in the world is the mosquito. It might seem impossible that something so miniscule can kill so many people, but it's true. According to the World Health Organization, mosquito bites result in the deaths of more than 1 million people every year. The majority of these deaths are due to malaria. — Google

'nature inherently lacks significance, — 180 Proof

We give it significance, and that’s significant. It ought not to be discounted. Somehow, the meaningless universe gives rise to creatures who impart significance.

[del]

Alcohol — Outlander

Lol, ok.

failing to address a problem from it's source is not solved by simply creating more environments where the same problem simply has more chances or opportunity to somehow resolve itself on its own simply because it does not have any more chances here nor there. — Outlander

What is its source? For me, part of the cause (source) of feelings of insignificance is knowing that no matter what we do we can’t win the game of life. One way or another we will all die. So in the end any good I may be able to cause is inconsequential. Having this thought in one’s head makes life seem pointless. But, what if it wasn’t an absolute given that we will all die? What if the possibility that we, as a species, could exist indefinitely?

Beyond all that however, how is life of a species on another planet even in an entirely different galaxy any more hope other than trivial hope? We can just as easily be destroyed by a black hole, cosmic ray burst, star explosion/implosion, asteroid, heat death of the universe, or any other cosmic phenomena one could imagine. Furthermore, if one errs on the side of evolution, life will just re-create itself, perhaps even better here, so why worry about it so much? — Outlander

It’s more hopeful because even if the worst does occur (like one of the doomsday scenarios you mention) it doesn’t necessarily mean extinction. What destroys one planet, may not affect another. I think for a multi-planetary species, these events would be comparable to the various natural disasters we face now. They’re tragic, but capable of being overcome. And evolution couldn’t recreate life if the planet was destroyed. That seems beside the point anyway. We don’t, at least I don’t think we do, feel significant because other species exist.

Selfishness. Myopia. Fear. Arrogance. Ignorance. That is all that will be "spread" throughout the universe if your maniacal plot of galactic domination ever comes to fruition. — Outlander

Well, we’re certainly an ego driven species, so yes those things will still exist and be spread throughout the cosmos, but perhaps we will feel at least a lot bit more significant in the grand scheme of things.

Little drops of water,
Little grains of sand,
Make the mighty ocean
And the pleasant land,
So the little minutes,
Humble though they be,
Make the mighty ages
Of eternity — Julia carney (Little Things)

Size is irrelevant. Consider: The coronavirus is tiny. Despite this, it has, through direct and indirect (plague and panic), effectively changed the actions of an entire race, and through that has also had an impact on the rest of the planet. Tiny virus; huge change. Size is a detail, influence is important.

Also...I am not insignificant. Just ask me.

Sure, we don’t care about the physical size of a virus, but rather the size of its impact. And I appreciate that you don’t feel insignificant personally, but there are many of us who do. However, since size is irrelevant, as you claim, then how would you explain the explanation many people who feel insignificant give as justification for their feelings? Namely that we are an insignificant species at least partly because the cosmos is so much bigger than us?

people are fond of self deprecation. It plays into the woe is me perspective. Also, if someone is insignificant, it lets them off the hook for having to achieve anything in their life, after all, they didn't matter anyway, so why should they need to actually do anything with their life? Just saying, it is an easy out.