You do realise that all of this is interpretation. Even Darwinian evolution and this notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ are constructed according to assumptions (fears) and preferences (desires). — Possibility

Interpretation is YOUR choice of label that does not make it appropriate for what I typed. It's in the judgment of others to decide if they agree with any 'interpretive,' element YOU judge as present in what I typed
.
Darwinian evolution is fact, it is not an interpretated construct. Natural selection is also fact.
Survival of the fittest or those that develop the most successful survival strategy is evidenced by the fact that we have more control over our fate compared to any other species on the planet.

There is no ‘of course’ about it. — Possibility

My 'of course' is valid in my opinion. Are you saying that the god posit is a surprising/unexpected one, given the ignorance within which it was first suggested by the ancients?

We like to think/hope that science and transhumanism will enable us ALL to gain control over death, but this is no less a bedtime story than religion is. — Possibility

Well I understand what you are saying but its similar, in my opinion, to me chiseling on a clay tablet addressed to you 1000 years ago that I think that in 1000 years we will be able to communicate with another human anywhere on the Earth, using machines and my words will reach you seconds after I despatched them, no matter how far away from me you are on the Earth.
I am sure the response of many, would be:
'We like to think/hope that future science will enable us ALL to communicate so quickly but this is just a bedtime story.'

Science is motivated by answers to questions and pays zero attention to humanity when left to its devices. And frankly, transhumanism smacks of self-interest masquerading as philanthropy, tbh. — Possibility

Is that YOUR interpretation? If so then fine you are entitled and welcome to it but I disagree.
The most significant science on this planet is performed only by humans so in what way are these human scientists ignoring their own humanity?
Transhumanism satisfies both, unashamedly! self-interest and philanthropy. Nothing wrong with that is there?

In the end, I think all these interpretations of who we intend to be as humans point towards a fundamental question we need to ask ourselves: if it came down to a choice between living and loving, which would I choose? And if the answer is ‘it depends’, then perhaps we still have need of god, after all - if only as as a framework for our understanding. — Possibility

So don't accept the answer 'it depends,' exclaim an imperative to balance between both in all judgments and don't exclude either.
'Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears and need god the superhero to reassure them when they are alone or scared or close to death.
I have not completely conquered my own fears, primal or otherwise, nor would I want to, but I have made enough progress to not need a god fable to help me when I am in trouble. I would rather rely on fellow humans. If I am in pain, I will turn to medical personnel, not useless prayer.
If I am close to death, I will revel in the fact that I am going to disassemble and become part of that which I came from, universal raw materials. I am content with that.

Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears — universeness

You have said this many times already. That god comes from nothing but primal fear. That's not true. I know it's not so for me. Well, maybe fear of thinking that science has the answers. That's a bed time story all the same. "Don't worry child, the big bang made it all for you. Although it knew nothing, the stuff back then was completely ignorant, it still brought itself into existence. So now shut the fuck up and go to sleep!"

I see no reason for trying to fill such gaps with something as lazy-minded as the god posit. — universeness

That's indeed not what god should be used for. What I mean is, if you have found the final theory, the one describing how the universe functions at the fundamental level, what caused the stuff and rules it obeys into existence? Say, strings, branes, their tensions, and the Calabi-Yau manifolds, or 26 dimensions. You can offer logical arguments for the numbers of dimensions but why strings and dimensions exist in the first place is not answered by string theory (which btw, on closer inspection turns out to be a mathematical fantasy, for which you only have to look at the original Kaluza-Klein theory on EM).

You have said this many times already. That god comes from nothing but primal fear. That's not true. I know it's not so for me. Well, maybe fear of thinking that science has the answers. That's a bed time story all the same. "Don't worry child, the big bang made it all for you. Although it knew nothing, the stuff back then was completely ignorant, it still brought itself into existence — Haglund

Yes, I have, and I intend to keep doing so until it's proven demonstrably incorrect.
I don't know what your personal god does for you or why you need it but I cannot compare it to any of my own conceptions of what primal fear is until you can clearly express what your god does for you and why you need it. If you claim that it's simply your logical conclusion for the creator of the Universe then we are at an impasse, as I think that is just an incorrect conclusion, that theists repeat at least as often as I repeat my primal fear reasoning. At least I don't repeat from a window in the Vatican or from an authoritative pulpit position.

what caused the stuff and rules it obeys into existence? — Haglund

Why not 'random happenstance?'

but why strings and dimensions exist in the first place is not answered by string theory — Haglund

Not yet but I suspect the answer will be random chance, not deliberate intent (by a god or any other system capable of intent).

Yes, I have, and I intend to keep doing so until it's proven demonstrably incorrect — universeness

I think that the need for gods is not always involved in explanations of natural phenomena. There are other reasons (so not moral or explicative) reasons to believe in gods. Like providing meaning or reason. I think this is what Dawkins and other new atheists don't understand and have fear of because it threatens their images and icons. And fighting theism shows that one is commited to science, which inflates their chances to rise in the hierarchy of important figures in science, though it actually shows their lack of genius for which they try to make up by attacking the non-scientific.

Why not 'random happenstance?' — universeness

That doesn't provide a reason to live. At least, not for me. I can live without gods. But when it comes to the meaning or reason of life, I don't accept the evolutionary approach, saying that we live because evolution shaped us and we live to pass on genes or memes or are accidental outcomes of random particle movements at the beginning of each big bang. Which is all true, but descriptive only. I mean, we do pass on genes and memes, there were random particle distributions, etc.

Like providing meaning or reason. — Haglund

That doesn't provide a reason to live. At least, not for me — Haglund

Sounds like you are on a quest for a personal meaning or reason for your own existence and hoping that the answer you find will be a 'universal truth.' Perhaps THEE Universal truth. Even better than science's attempt to find a ToE. Your best personal answer so far is god but I would ask you the following question.

If we remove god as your answer for a moment. Does your life lose all meaning? What would change?
If your answer is that I would feel less......what? secure?....more what?......more meaningless?
Then ask yourself why do I feel (as in me, Stephen!) that my life is full of meaning and reason.
How is it possible for me to feel that without any god(s) playing any role at all in my life?
If you think they/it are/is so fundamental then how come I exist very happily without it/them?
Are you sure you need god so much? I can confirm you have vital meaning and reason to live.
You are needed to look at the Universe in awe and wonderment, without you or the like of you, THE UNIVERSE has reduced meaning. You have things the wrong way round. You don't need god to give you meaning and reason. The universe needs you to give it meaning and reason.

If we remove god as your answer for a moment. Does your life lose all meaning? What would change? — universeness

I'm always looking for what it all means and why we're here. Knowing that we're here for a reason, so not because what the scientific story tells us, gives a kind of liberated feeling.

I'm always looking for what it all means and why we're here — Haglund

So am I yet I don't accept god as the answer. How come I can do that if god is so essential/fundamental to any meaning or reason in life as you suggested earlier. The burden is on you to explain anomolies such as me in your god posit.

gives a kind of liberated feeling — Haglund

I feel liberated but still no god required!

I think that's because I think that I found the answer of the riddle of the origin of the universe, and the preceding, etc. The fact that it's all there, including all life, makes it look meaningless, just being there without reason. Which can be nice, I know what you mean. But for me that's not enough. Somehow life is more fun if I know the universe and all in it is a copy of heaven with life in it. That truly has no reason. That just is and we and all life in the universe life the life once lived in heaven. If I squeeze my love in the toe it makes it somehow truly heavenly (she has her feet on my lap right now!). Dunno why, but it does. Like that, no one can give a scientific explanation for it, maybe.

What you typed is very human. No god involved, just you and the woman you love.
If you abandoned god now would your 'squeeze' have less meaning to you?
I am glad I need no god to provide me with moments of 'heaven.' I can create them for myself and between myself and others. I can experience any level of happiness and contentment you can and I don't need any acknowledgment of non-existent gods to do so.

If you abandoned god now would your 'squeeze' have less meaning to you? — universeness

Because then it could be explained by science. In principle.

Darwinian evolution is fact, it is not an interpretated construct. Natural selection is also fact.
Survival of the fittest or those that develop the most successful survival strategy is evidenced by the fact that we have more control over our fate compared to any other species on the planet. — universeness

No - natural selection is fact, Darwinian evolution is a theory, and ‘survival of the fittest’ is an interpretation. The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival’ is a ridiculous contrivance - we evolved into the most highly variable organism, enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration.

Are you saying that the god posit is a surprising/unexpected one, given the ignorance within which it was first suggested by the ancients? — universeness

I’m saying that you’re assuming this is how the god posit was first suggested, when there is no evidence to confirm this. The story sounds believable, sure, but it’s just a story - a way of arranging the information so that it makes sense. This is what I mean by interpretation.

Well I understand what you are saying but its similar, in my opinion, to me chiseling on a clay tablet addressed to you 1000 years ago that I think that in 1000 years we will be able to communicate with another human anywhere on the Earth, using machines and my words will reach you seconds after I despatched them, no matter how far away from me you are on the Earth.
I am sure the response of many, would be:
'We like to think/hope that future science will enable us ALL to communicate so quickly but this is just a bedtime story.' — universeness

Sure, and saying we should therefore focus on building machines rather than fashioning writing implements or training horses would be presumptuous, don’t you think?

The most significant science on this planet is performed only by humans so in what way are these human scientists ignoring their own humanity?
Transhumanism satisfies both, unashamedly! self-interest and philanthropy. Nothing wrong with that is there? — universeness

That’s right - science requires humanity not just as a conscious observer, but a self-conscious, ethical participant. When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future. Science is as destructive when carelessly handled as it is useful. There is a framework needed here, and transhumanism doesn’t appear to be it.

Transhumanism doesn’t account for the inevitable hierarchical distinction between self-interest and philanthropy, let alone between ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘all’ humans. Nor does it hide its anthropocentric priority. It harks back to the wide-eyed enthusiasm for Humanism, and all the marketing hype that hits us right in our primal fear, promising the world...

So don't accept the answer 'it depends,' exclaim an imperative to balance between both in all judgments and don't exclude either. — universeness

In other words, talk as if loving but act as if living, and pretend you offer the ‘best’ of both - just like every other religion. You’ll pardon me if I don’t buy it...

'Need of god' is only still true for those who still have little control over their primal fears and need god the superhero to reassure them when they are alone or scared or close to death.
I have not completely conquered my own fears, primal or otherwise, nor would I want to, but I have made enough progress to not need a god fable to help me when I am in trouble. I would rather rely on fellow humans. If I am in pain, I will turn to medical personnel, not useless prayer.
If I am close to death, I will revel in the fact that I am going to disassemble and become part of that which I came from, universal raw materials. I am content with that. — universeness

I’m not talking about a god or superhero fable, but a logically qualitative framework to help us reasonably determine what is potential/valuable/significant from what’s possible, given our current limitations as variably affected, fearful humans. We don’t need reassurance that something else is in control - we just need confidence in the accuracy of our next move. That’s all we’ve ever needed.

Because then it could be explained by science. In principle. — Haglund

It depends what level of explanation you want but I am sure a neuroscientist could satisfy you, if you really need to know whats going on in your brain mechanistically, what processes are involved and which emotions, intensity levels, and chemicals are involved, when you lovingly reacted to squeezing your partner's toe.

My whole point is that science can't explain it like that. It can describe what's going on, in an evolutionary, chemical, neurological, cosmological, biological, physiological, mathematical, or even lovological way what's going on, but it can't explain why we're here in the first place, and I squeeze her. Knowing we're just doing what the gods were once doing defies every explanation. The gods are eternal, mysterious, a riddle.

Darwinian evolution is a theory — Possibility

The evidence for the evolution of species is strong enough to be fact in my opinion and I think that is a majority opinion, in the absence of equally strong evidence of an alternate origin.
So what is the alternate theory(s) that you currently have under consideration?

we evolved into the most highly variable organism, enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

What do you mean by 'variable?' There is more variety in dog type or bird type than human type.
If you are saying that we have more variety in actions then this is part of the evidence which supports:

The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival — Possibility

as are:

enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Which further supports 'best at species level survival.' You provide support for this 'ridiculous contrivance.'

I’m saying that you’re assuming this is how the god posit was first suggested, when there is no evidence to confirm this. — Possibility

Yet you offer no alternate view of why the god posit was initially formed. If not from human primal fear then from what human thought processes/needs, do you suggest god formed from? or do you think it was in direct communication with the ancients?

Sure, and saying we should therefore focus on building machines rather than fashioning writing implements or training horses would be presumptuous, don’t you think? — Possibility

Where did I suggest abandoning horses or pens because we have cars or computers? I advocate prioritising new tech over old but old tech can be very useful at times. The point you make is trivial.

That’s right - science requires humanity not just as a conscious observer, but a self-conscious, ethical participant. — Possibility

I agree.

When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future. — Possibility

Not a viewpoint I share. We are creatures that ask questions, that is our prime directive. We are incapable of stopping our need to question, in my opinion. We must be wise, yes, we must tread carefully and consider the consequences of what we do and why we are doing it but we must not become too afraid to do anything. If taking a chance is the only alternative to stagnation then I vote for taking the chance. I would be content to die in pursuit of new knowledge but I would also be devastated if others died because of my decision to take the chance and I would have to live and die with that decision but I would still understand why I made it. No one has ever said life is always easy.

Science is as destructive when carelessly handled as it is useful. There is a framework needed here — Possibility

I agree, this would be a wise approach.

transhumanism doesn’t appear to be it.
Transhumanism doesn’t account for the inevitable hierarchical distinction between self-interest and philanthropy, let alone between ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘all’ humans. Nor does it hide its anthropocentric priority. It harks back to the wide-eyed enthusiasm for Humanism, and all the marketing hype that hits us right in our primal fear, promising the world... — Possibility

So you are basically a pessimist then? or at least as far as the possibilities offered by transhumanism go. I don't agree.

In other words, talk as if loving but act as if living, and pretend you offer the ‘best’ of both - just like every other religion. You’ll pardon me if I don’t buy it... — Possibility

Ok, pardon granted. You have the right to vote against.

we just need confidence in the accuracy of our next move. That’s all we’ve ever needed. — Possibility

Then, it is the responsibility of those in control to reassure you or explain to you that despite your objections they are going to 'take the chance,' anyway but I would support you if those in control do not have a democratic mandate to 'make the next move,' you are concerned about.

The gods are eternal, mysterious, a riddle. — Haglund

I think you are talking about life, not gods. I think you just use the god label because you like a little woo woo in your life and it has the extra benefit of sating your primal fears, even though you deny it.
When your god posit is just based on, n my opinion. pure irrational emotional need, we are left with nothing but an exchange of opinion.

I think you are talking about life, not gods. I think you just use the god label because you like a little woo woo in your life and it has the extra benefit of sating your primal fears, even though you deny it.
When your god posit is just based on, n my opinion. pure irrational emotional need, we are left with nothing but an exchange of opinion. — universeness

There can only be woo woo with gods. Then all of life becomes woo woo. Woo woo! Science can't explain woo woo. You can invent all kinds of labels or rationalizations, like a primal fear (no doubt I have them), but it will indeed stay your opinion that gods don't exist.

primal fear — Haglund

Fear, bewilderment, awe, wonder, excitement, thrill, all rolled into one! Holy shit! Oh my God! Holy mother of God! Holy cow! It's that simple and yet, not!

Re Aporia & Ataraxia.

Holy mother of God! — Agent Smith

Grandma of JC! Could it be that God Himself fertilized the egg from which He sprang? Could we call it an immaculate conception? Retro-Sex maybe? In Vitrus Sanctus?

What do you mean by 'variable?' There is more variety in dog type or bird type than human type.
If you are saying that we have more variety in actions then this is part of the evidence which supports:
The idea that we evolved to be the best at species-level ‘survival
— Possibility
as are:
enabling us to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration.
— Possibility
Which further supports 'best at species level survival.' You provide support for this 'ridiculous contrivance.' — universeness

There is insufficient evidence to assume that ‘survival’ is the purpose of evolution, just because it happens to be a result of natural selection. Natural selection explains how diversity occurs, not why it occurs.

Soft, porous skin, very little body hair or armour, forward-facing eyes, external auditory structures, extremely versatile and malleable brain structure, Humanity has evolved high variability (sensitivity) in relation to environmental factors, such that our offspring (if left alone) are among the most vulnerable of all the animal kingdom upon birth. It’s not about ‘type’, but development. Our potential for survival is contingent upon, and often takes a back seat to, our capacity for awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion, maximised by developing education, socialisation and communication with other humans. Altruism, unconditional love, youth suicide, curiosity, invention, art, mathematics, music, literature, etc are all insufficiently explained by Darwinian evolution theory.

Yet you offer no alternate view of why the god posit was initially formed. If not from human primal fear then from what human thought processes/needs, do you suggest god formed from? or do you think it was in direct communication with the ancients? — universeness

The notion of god or gods can just as easily develop from curiosity as from fear, even from a combination of both. From our imaginable possibility, some things are more likely to happen, and some things are not. There has to be a structure to this we can’t quite figure out yet - some source or system of power and knowledge out/up there. It’s only natural to want to relate to this personally, to ask questions, to try and find a way to connect what you do to this system of power and knowledge. Trial and error until something seems to work. And if, by chance, this attempt to connect appears favourable, naturally others will be curious as to what or who you’re getting this increased value/potential from. And how is that fair, or what if they tried it too?

It seems to me that the favourable relations would develop into gods of religion more often than unfavourable ones; natural selection, and all that.

Where did I suggest abandoning horses or pens because we have cars or computers? I advocate prioritising new tech over old but old tech can be very useful at times. The point you make is trivial. — universeness

The point I make is analogous to claims that we should focus on prolonging life and getting off this planet, as if they’re the answer.

When we pursue science for it’s own sake, we tend to pursue our own destruction. And when we pursue it purely for our current interests, we whittle away at our future.
— Possibility
Not a viewpoint I share. We are creatures that ask questions, that is our prime directive. We are incapable of stopping our need to question, in my opinion. We must be wise, yes, we must tread carefully and consider the consequences of what we do and why we are doing it but we must not become too afraid to do anything. If taking a chance is the only alternative to stagnation then I vote for taking the chance. I would be content to die in pursuit of new knowledge but I would also be devastated if others died because of my decision to take the chance and I would have to live and die with that decision but I would still understand why I made it. No one has ever said life is always easy. — universeness

Not denying this (it fits with what I wrote above) only pointing out that science is a tool, and our current interests are motivation - neither should be mistaken for a purpose or goal in itself.

There is insufficient evidence to assume that ‘survival’ is the purpose of evolution, just because it happens to be a result of natural selection. Natural selection explains how diversity occurs, not why it occurs — Possibility

99% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are extinct. This is an estimate but is based on fossil evidence etc. http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556
Pretty strong evidence if you ask me. I think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' but we can of course still go extinct due to our own behaviour or if we continue to exist only on this planet.

all insufficiently explained by Darwinian evolution theory. — Possibility

Oh come on! did you really expect it to explain the list you mentioned? and for you, the fact that it does not explain the contents of the list you typed means it might be wrong about the events it does cover?
Einstein didn't explain the origins of human altruism or unconditional love either does that devalue his theories as well?

The notion of god or gods can just as easily develop from curiosity as from fear, even from a combination of both — Possibility

Sure, you can combine primal fears with any other human emotion/intuition/instinct you like to get to the origin of the god posit but primal fear is the foundation.

The point I make is analogous to claims that we should focus on prolonging life and getting off this planet, as if they’re the answer. — Possibility

What do you mean by 'THE answer?' I suggest that they are AN answer, a way to improve the range of human choice when it comes to our individual termination and a way to decrease the chance of going extinct.

only pointing out that science is a tool, and our current interests are motivation - neither should be mistaken for a purpose or goal in itself. — Possibility

I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition, and the range of choices each person has.
I advocate for better/wiser/immune to nefarious ba******, global politics as well as much more focus and support of scientific endevours, without ignoring the everyday needs of people and planet and all flora and fauna on it.
I declare it loudly and proudly but I don't advocate a 'blunderbuss' approach at all. I agree with a cautious approach which must have democratic majority mandate before it can be actioned.

think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' — universeness

Very true! Killing the planet, the natural world, getting rid of other species and cultures is not seen in the natural world.

I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition — universeness

A nice dream. But just look what technology brought us. What's so special about technology and its advancement? It's time humanity turns away from it and acknowledges the so-called scientific progress is a dead end road and looks for new more natural ways of life. Only like that we'll survive. And let's be honest. We know how the universe came to be, we know the particles in it, we know about evolution, and now it's time we should resume a path from which we digressed about 3000 years ago, to take the path of knowledge while not knowing shit. Except for some isolated pockets.

Killing the planet, the natural world, getting rid of other species and cultures is not seen in the natural world. — Haglund

Yep we are capable of all of that but we are not responsible for the vast majority of the 99% of all species that have gone extinct. As I have said before, we didn't wipe out the dinos for example.
Why are your god's such bad designers? The Universe seems to be filled with useless dead lumps of rock and pointless gas clouds that we 'intelligent,' lifeforms will never encounter or need. Why all the failed species and pointless superfluous space and material in the Universe. I wouldn't trust your gods to build a sandcastle they are incompetent idiots. If the Kuiper belt disappeared tomorrow it would have no effect of any universal significance so why did your dimwitted gods put it there?

A nice dream. But just look what technology brought us. What's so special about technology and its advancement? It's time humanity turns away from it and acknowledges the so-called scientific progress is a dead end road and looks for new more natural ways of life. Only like that we'll survive. And let's be honest. We know how the universe came to be, we know the particles in it, we know about evolution, and now it's time we should resume a path from which we digressed about 3000 years ago, to take the path of knowledge while not knowing shit. Except for some isolated pockets — Haglund

Backwards is not our path!

Holy mother of God!
— Agent Smith

Grandma of JC! Could it be that God Himself fertilized the egg from which He sprang? Could we call it an immaculate conception? Retro-Sex maybe? In Vitrus Sanctus? — Haglund

Aye! God was/is genuine as for as motherf**ckers go.

Why are your god's such bad designers — universeness

The dino gods had their fair share! Once in a while there are mass extinctions. But life always keeps flourishing on the deads of the past. Ìf technology keeps inflating and inflating the future looks dim. The way people change the surface of the Earth is a different way from natural extinctions (of course it wouldn't be bad if we destroyed an asteroid potatoe if we knew it would hit the Earth!) happened. It's a continue pressure on nature, which is growing. You can try to escape with a spaceship (it only takes 2 months to the nearest star). FF and repeat...

Aye! God was/is genuine as for as motherf**ckers go. — Agent Smith

God, the Holy MF...

Mater Irrumator Praetor

Holy MIP!

99% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are extinct. This is an estimate but is based on fossil evidence etc. http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556
Pretty strong evidence if you ask me. I think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' but we can of course still go extinct due to our own behaviour or if we continue to exist only on this planet. — universeness

That’s evidence of diversity, not of ‘survival’ as the reason for diversity. The question isn’t ‘why are all these other species extinct?’ It’s ‘why has evolution led to our particular arrangement of systems and structures?’ This myth that survival, dominance and procreation are the prime directives - you know that’s not true. I believe we will go extinct only if we keep insisting that this is the plan.

Oh come on! did you really expect it to explain the list you mentioned? and for you, the fact that it does not explain the contents of the list you typed means it might be wrong about the events it does cover?
Einstein didn't explain the origins of human altruism or unconditional love either does that devalue his theories as well? — universeness

Einstein’s theories aren’t being used to try and explain these; Darwinian evolution theory is.

Sure, you can combine primal fears with any other human emotion/intuition/instinct you like to get to the origin of the god posit but primal fear is the foundation. — universeness

I respectfully disagree. Our prime directive is to ask questions - you said so yourself.

I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition, and the range of choices each person has.
I advocate for better/wiser/immune to nefarious ba******, global politics as well as much more focus and support of scientific endevours, without ignoring the everyday needs of people and planet and all flora and fauna on it.
I declare it loudly and proudly but I don't advocate a 'blunderbuss' approach at all. I agree with a cautious approach which must have democratic majority mandate before it can be actioned. — universeness

That all sounds noble, I’m just cautious of the attitude. There’s a lot of competing needs there, and it seems like all your confidence is placed in science tempered by common sense and democracy. I wish I had your confidence in this combination at the moment, but I don’t.

That’s evidence of diversity, not of ‘survival’ as the reason for diversity. The question isn’t ‘why are all these other species extinct?’ It’s ‘why has evolution led to our particular arrangement of systems and structures?’ This myth that survival, dominance and procreation are the prime directives - you know that’s not true. I believe we will go extinct only if we keep insisting that this is the plan — Possibility

This is a very skewed logic in my opinion and It makes very little sense to me.

I respectfully disagree. Our prime directive is to ask questions - you said so yourself. — Possibility

So we both ask questions but we don't agree on the answers. We have a little common ground but not much.

That all sounds noble, I’m just cautious of the attitude. There’s a lot of competing needs there, and it seems like all your confidence is placed in science tempered by common sense and democracy. I wish I had your confidence in this combination at the moment, but I don’t. — Possibility

Well I appreciate you giving me a little room as maybe having genuinely beneficent intentions.
I applaud and approve of your skepticism. You would perhaps make a good scrutineer of those who have been trusted enough, to be given a position of power. I am an advocate of powerful checks and balances fully established and representative of the people who are being represented.
You are right not to trust what people say, only trust what they do and demonstrate. We must insist that if a person holds a significant position of power and influence then their actions must be in the full view of everyone they represent. No autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/cult of personality/cult of celebrity/religious doctrine etc should ever be able to gain and hold power at any significant level of society.