The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve? — universeness

165 and 177 million years of existence. We are unlikely to make 1 million.

They also had no chance at all of preventing their own extinction. — universeness

Against a meteor strike, I very much doubt even the cleverest humans have an adequate defence, however the movies like to mess around with the idea of long-range nuclear missiles.

I would suggest we have more chance of preventing our own extinction, compared to any other species that has ever existed on this planet, so far. — universeness

Against us, no other species has a chance. Against us, neither have we.

I missed your post and duplicated it all unwitting witlessly.

If Shoemaker-Levy 9 had hit Earth in '94 instead of Jupiter, no doubt, like the dinos, we would not be here – wherever we are – having this discussion. We wouldn't have been able to stop it then even if we had seen it coming in time; today, I still don't think we have that capability despite what scifi / Hollyweird tells us.

Against us, no other species has a chance. Against us, neither have we. — Vera Mont

:fire:

I guess, great minds ... :smirk:

I'm still waiting for my solar-powered car. The one I want
. There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, though neither, I think will serve so many people over such distances as we are wont to travel now. Me, I hate speed. I hate having to drive on the highway. But country living means we do have the solar array for our house, and a wood-burning stove and room to grow some vegetables. — Vera Mont

Looks like a cool car! Hope they become more common, at least solar panels in other vehicles.

. There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, — Vera Mont

“Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to make an emergency landing because it’s nighttime and this is a solar airplane. We apologize for any inconvenience!” :cool:

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to make an emergency landing because it’s nighttime and this is a solar airplane. — 0 thru 9

Did you see the videos? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=solar+plane+video+#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:07024ebe,vid:i_QUPJZMAb4,st:0
My tv and computer work at night, too.

Yes, it is cool. I’m just being a smartass / dumbass. :blush:

I’m just being a smartass / dumbass. :blush: — 0 thru 9

I'm a huge fan of solar energy. In bad weather, of which we've had lots and expect considerably more - there are many power outages in the boonies. We don't notice, unless we go to the the other wing of the house and try to turn on a light. We still need Hydro backup, since we only have 8 batteries. Our electricity use last month cost $13; the delivery charge, taxes and surcharges were an additional $50. Highway (literally) robbery, but it's still way less than other people are paying.

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement — 180 Proof

The Earth has existed for over 4 billion years, the universe, for almost 14 billion, do you consider these facts to be achievements in themselves as well? Mere existence and survival is not enough imo.

Against a meteor strike, I very much doubt even the cleverest humans have an adequate defence, however the movies like to mess around with the idea of long-range nuclear missiles. — Vera Mont

If Shoemaker-Levy 9 had hit Earth in '94 instead of Jupiter, no doubt, like the dinos, we would be here – wherever we are – having this discussion. We wouldn't have been able to stop it then even if we saw it coming; today, I still don't think we have that capability despite what scifi / Hollywood tells us. — 180 Proof

Use this to give yourselves hope:
It is unlikely that Earth would be hit by a very large asteroid capable of harming all life on the planet because:
1. As the universe expands, stars and space rocks move farther apart, reducing the chance of a collision with Earth.
2. Asteroids and comets that can cause global damage are extremely rare, impacting Earth once every 100,000 to 500,000 years.
3. The probability of such an event is very low, around 0.1% per year.

and

Yes, it is possible to stop an asteroid from hitting Earth and causing destruction. There are several methods that can be used to deflect an asteroid’s trajectory. These include:

Gravity Tractor: A spacecraft can be used to hover near the asteroid and use its gravitational pull to slowly change the asteroid’s trajectory.

Kinetic Impactor: A spacecraft can be sent to collide with the asteroid at high speed, changing its trajectory.
(The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission successfully changed the trajectory of the asteroid Dimorphos when the NASA spacecraft intentionally slammed into the space rock on September 26, 2022. The DART mission was a full-scale demonstration of deflection technology and the world’s first conducted on behalf of planetary defense. The asteroid was not a threat to Earth)

Nuclear Detonation: A nuclear explosion can be used to deflect the asteroid’s trajectory.
Laser Ablation: A high-powered laser can be used to vaporize a small portion of the asteroid, creating a jet that will push the asteroid off course.
NASA and other space agencies are actively researching and developing these methods to protect Earth from potential asteroid impacts. However, detecting and tracking asteroids is also important in order to have enough time to prepare for a potential impact. The Planetary Society has launched a campaign called “Planetary Defense” which aims to raise awareness about the threat of asteroids and comets and promote research into planetary defense strategies.

Perhaps you both have been taking the words of Fraser from dads army, too much to heart:

I'm a huge fan of solar energy. In bad weather, of which we've had lots and expect considerably more - there are many power outages in the boonies. We don't notice, unless we go to the the other wing of the house and try to turn on a light. We still need Hydro backup, since we only have 8 batteries. Our electricity use last month cost $13; the delivery charge, taxes and surcharges were an additional $50. Highway (literally) robbery, but it's still way less than other people are paying. — Vera Mont

Sweet deal! :ok:
I’d love to get some solar energy going on here, even though we’re not in the sunbelt… yet. :yikes:
(like most belts, it seems to be expanding).

Mere existence and survival is not enough imo. — universeness

Did you gloss over the bit where

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement — 180 Proof

They throve and sustained their ecosystem, then were killed by an unpreventable cosmic event. This overachieving H. sapiens, in a mere 200,000 years has trashed its environment, destroyed much of its fauna and flora and put itself in an existential crisis?

Yes, it is possible to stop an asteroid from hitting Earth and causing destruction. — universeness

Well, why did the dinosaurs not make use of those technologies? They deserved to die!
Now, you just need to invent a deflector shield for human insanity.

I’d love to get some solar energy going on here, even though we’re not in the sunbelt — 0 thru 9

We're in Ontario, Canada. Five-month winter, rainy spring and fall It's raining now, and all week, so we need to conserve energy (no laundry; kitchen appliances only in the off-hours) and charge the batteries off hydro overnight. Also, get a kill-a-watt and lots of power cords with a switch to minimize your energy drain.

Did you gloss over the bit where

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement
— 180 Proof

They throve and sustained their ecosystem, then were killed by an unpreventable cosmic event. This overachieving H. sapiens, in a mere 200,000 years has trashed its environment, destroyed much of its fauna and flora and put itself in an existential crisis? — Vera Mont

Did you not read my response? you must have, as you quoted the end of the sentence I posted!

The Earth has existed for over 4 billion years, the universe, for almost 14 billion, do you consider these facts to be achievements in themselves as well? Mere existence and survival is not enough imo. — universeness

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line.
Even that early group achieved more than the dinos. Their use of base tools and fire are two valid examples.

You will get no argument from me about our bad record of the stewardship of the flora and fauna of this planet, but the example of the dinos, demonstrates that without scientific progress/advancement, A dominant species will likely go extinct anyway, via natural happenstance.

Well, why did the dinosaurs not make use of those technologies? — Vera Mont

What??? Is that some attempt at humour that I am missing?

They deserved to die! — Vera Mont

What??? Is that some attempt at humour that I am missing?

Now, you just need to invent a deflector shield for human insanity. — Vera Mont

It already exists, it's called human sanity, reason and enlightenment. Many of us employ it every day. You do to ..... well, mostly. Now, that's humour!

Did you not read my response? — universeness

Yes, I got that piece of irrelevancy, but didn't comment on it. I chose only to compare the success of two organic species.

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line. — universeness

Homo is the genus, and it descended directly from a line of apes, monkeys and lemurs, which descended from a direct line... etc, etc. I specified H. sapiens. If it's any consolation, some estimates of its presence stretch to 300,000 years.

Even that early group achieved more than the dinos. Their use of base tools and fire are two valid examples.

Tool use is considerably older and more widespread than humans generally acknowledge. So, you're down to the use of fire for 2.7 of those trifling 3 million years. All the spectacular advancements that are killing everything now were made in the blink of a few thousand years. If you consider rushing to self-immolation an achievement, I allowed for it - while disagreeing with the basic tenet that technology is the only valid measure of a species' success.

Now, that's humour! — universeness

:lol:

I specified H. sapiens. If it's any consolation, some estimates of its presence stretch to 300,000 years. — Vera Mont

I know, that's why I tried to correct you. Do you not agree that such as homo erectus, achieved more than the dinos?

while disagreeing with the basic tenet that technology is the only valid measure of a species' success. — Vera Mont

Not all scientific advances are technological. Would you call personal advances in personal enlightenment or at least your personal width and breadth of knowledge, a technological advancement?
After > 150 million years of existence, the dinos were no more enlightened at their end than they were at their beginning. Without progressive knowledge, our species would still be living in caves, worshiping the big lights in the sky and fearing all the noises coming from outside the caves at night.
I wonder if Jesus would still have turned up at some point? Immaculately/magically conceived in a cave somewhere in the Levant. Would homo sapiens who decided to reject scientific/ technological progression and had remained in their small, disparate, tribal, nomadic communities, living in caves, teepees, or perhaps even mud huts, have more or less need of theism, in your opinion. Is the fact that theism is under pressure today, almost everywhere, due to the scientific progress we have made?

What do you suggest the long-term goals of these disparate, groups of humans would/could/should be? You do suggest that these disparate groups would be better than a single globally united species, yes?
I am unsure whether or not you advocate for a political, economic, social global unity of culturally disparate and physically separated 'tribal' sized or 'nation' sized groups or you advocate for disparate but cooperative (rather than warring) groups of human settlements who have no sense of a global identity or sense of 'human race,' as of greater importance than their own 'tribal' or 'national' cultural identity.
Do you think, being a 'Virginian,' should be more important than being an American,' for example?

I know, that's why I tried to correct you. Do you not agree that such as homo erectus, achieved more than the dinos? — universeness

You mixed up genus and species. But that's okay, because, no, I don't agree that any of the hominids 'achieved' anything more remarkable than species that reached environmental equilibrium and thus assured themselves of a long, stable existence. Aspiring to much and burning out fast doesn't count as an achievement in my book. Especially if it involves an increased portion of the human population forced to live miserable lives.

Not all scientific advances are technological. Would you call personal advances in personal enlightenment or at least your personal width and breadth of knowledge, a technological advancement? — universeness

No. I'm unconvinced that science has, in a cost/harm - gain/benefit balance has been a net gain. I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, and I would certainly not acquire it at the price of all that suffering. I know things they don't and they know things I don't. I have learned what I need to live my life. That's a happenstance, not a virtue.

Without progressive knowledge, our species would still be living in caves, worshiping the big lights in the sky and fearing all the noises coming from outside the caves at night. — universeness

How is that different from an apartment in Miami?

Would homo sapiens who decided to reject scientific/ technological progression and had remained in their small, disparate, tribal, nomadic communities, living in caves, teepees, or perhaps even mud huts, have more or less need of theism, — universeness

Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now.

Is the fact that theism is under pressure today, almost everywhere, due to the scientific progress we have made? — universeness

By 'almost everywhere', I assume you mean northern Europe.
No, that is not a fact; that is wishful thinking that the trend of the first half of the 20th century would continue uninterrupted. That is not the case.

Religious fundamentalism has risen to worldwide prominence since the 1970s. We review research on fundamentalist movements to learn what religious fundamentalisms are, if and
why they appear to be resurging, their characteristics, their possible links to violence, and their relation to modernity.

I am unsure whether or not you advocate for a political, economic, social global unity of culturally disparate and physically separated 'tribal' sized or 'nation' sized groups or you advocate for disparate but cooperative (rather than warring) groups of human settlements who have no sense of a global identity or sense of 'human race,' as of greater importance than their own 'tribal' or 'national' cultural identity. — universeness

I would advocate now the same arrangement I advocated all along: discreet, peacefully coexisting tribal units, with a global police force that they all support. We can't co-operate without being aware that we're the same species, but I would quite emphatically prefer we were less anthropocentric in our world-view.
But I won't be around to advocate anything, as it can't happen until long after the collapse of this civilization.

Do you think, being a 'Virginian,' should be more important than being an American,' for example? — universeness

They don't care what I think: to many if not most Virginians, that is already a fact. The Trumpites and fellow traveller contingents are hell-bent on dismantling the federal government and tearing up constitution.

You mixed up genus and species. — Vera Mont

So I typed species instead of genus :scream: :roll: :
Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are not the same species. They are two different species of the Homo genus that existed at different times in history. Homo erectus is an extinct speciesof human that lived between 1.9 million and 70,000 years ago 1. On the other hand, Homo sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo and is the only extant member of the subtribe Hominina. It is believed that Homo sapiens [b]evolved from Homo erectus in Africa around 300,000 years ago[/b]

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line. — universeness

The words I have emboldened and underlined made my points very clear.

no, I don't agree that any of the hominids 'achieved' anything more remarkable than species that reached environmental equilibrium and thus assured themselves of a long, stable existence. — Vera Mont

Again, let's try Chat GPT as an arbiter:
My question was: Did homo erectus achieve more than the dinosaurs?

Chat GPT's reply:

Homo erectus, an extinct species of hominin that lived approximately 1.9 million to 143,000 years ago, achieved much more than dinosaurs in terms of technological advancements, social organization, and cultural development. It's important to note that Homo erectus and dinosaurs existed at very different times in Earth's history, with dinosaurs going extinct around 65 million years ago.

Here are some key achievements of Homo erectus:

Tool Use and Manufacture: Homo erectus is credited with being one of the earliest hominin species to consistently use and create tools. They crafted tools from stone and other materials, which helped them hunt, butcher, and process food, as well as shape their environment.

Control of Fire: There is evidence to suggest that Homo erectus was able to control and use fire. This ability not only provided warmth and protection but also allowed for cooking, which made food more digestible and nutrient-rich.

Long-Distance Travel: Homo erectus is thought to have been the first hominin species to expand beyond Africa. They migrated to other parts of the world, including Asia and Europe, demonstrating an ability to adapt to diverse environments and climates.

Social Structures: Homo erectus likely lived in social groups, which may have facilitated cooperation, communication, and the sharing of knowledge and resources. This social structure could have contributed to their success as a species.

Cultural Developments: While evidence of artistic expression is limited, Homo erectus left behind more sophisticated tools and artifacts than any previous hominin species. This suggests a degree of cultural development and the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next.

In contrast, dinosaurs were a diverse group of reptiles that lived for millions of years, but they did not exhibit the same level of cultural and technological achievements as Homo erectus. Dinosaurs are known primarily for their diversity in body size, shape, and ecological niches. They were part of Earth's history for a much longer period than Homo erectus but did not develop the kinds of complex societies and technological advancements that characterized human evolution.

So, in terms of achievements and impact on their environment, Homo erectus achieved more than dinosaurs by developing a range of technological, social, and cultural adaptations that allowed them to thrive and spread across the world.

So I typed species instead of genus — universeness

You corrected my accurate term with an inaccurate one, and attributed the age of the genus to the species. Tacking on an extinct related species that might have used fire still won't bring the longevity of the Homos anywhere close to that of dinosaurs, which are extinct, but their reptilian descendants are still around, still managing their affairs better than we are.

Again, let's try Chat GPT as an arbiter: — universeness

Or we could try my sock-puppet as an arbiter. Too bad I don't have one. But it really makes no impression on me that you have like-minded allies: I'll just have to disagree with them, too, even the robots.
This being the operative phrase:

in terms of — universeness

this being the down-side:

impact on their environment — universeness

The chatty pre-trained performer shares your value system - I don't.

No. I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow. I know things they don't and they know things I don't. I have learned what I need to live my life. That's a happenstance, not a virtue. — Vera Mont

Really??? Can a crow or an octopus demonstrate its ability to create meaning in the way you can? can either write a book like you can/have? Can they memorialise like you can? I find your quote above compassionate but very inaccurate. But, as you say, that's ok.

How is that different from an apartment in Miami? — Vera Mont

You live in a cave, teepee or mud hut for a year and I will live in a nice apartment in Miami.
Then we can compare notes and experiences. :up:

Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now. — Vera Mont

Both seem quite bad to me!

I would advocate now the same arrangement I advocated all along: discreet, peacefully coexisting tribal units, with a global police force that they all support. We can't co-operate without being aware that we're the same species, but I would quite emphatically prefer we were less anthropocentric in our world-view.
But I won't be around to advocate anything, as it can't happen until long after the collapse of this civilization. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I think we will do much better than this and much quicker than you suggest, but thanks for making your position on this clear.

Or we could try my own sock-puppet as an arbiter. Too bad I don't have one. — Vera Mont

No, as it would not be independent, you would have autocratic control over such.

But it really makes no impression on me that you have like-minded allies: I'll just have to disagree with them, too, even the robots. — Vera Mont

I was not going for an ad populum argument, Chat GPT is an expert knowledge databased system, not an emotive human. Although, I am not suggesting that an emotive human is inferior.

Chat GPT is an expert knowledge databased system, — universeness

designed, built and programmed by techies.

Can a crow or an octopus demonstrate its ability to create meaning in the way you can? — universeness

Why would it need to? They're not required to live my life - and it's just as well I don't have to attempt living theirs.

You live in a cave, teepee or mud hut [ this one? ] for a year — universeness

The reason for the popularity of adobe homes is that they are incredibly durable in harsh, dry climates. They are impressively resilient against earthquakes (when properly reinforced) and other natural disasters, and for those reasons, some of the oldest buildings in the world are made from adobe mud and are still standing.

and I will live in a nice apartment [this one? in Miami.

Both seem quite bad to me! — universeness

So, no progress, then?

I'm not persuaded (but maybe your panglossalalia is right).

:up:

:up: :up:

:up: :up: :up:

designed, built and programmed by techies. — Vera Mont

Like most tools you probably find very useful to employ, every day of your life. But your year in a cave, could give you new opportunity to experience, first hand, the way of the Luddite.

Why would it need to? — Vera Mont

I thought I already told you! To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive.
Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. Our solar system currently contains nothing more than meaningless objects that function much the same or with even less significance than the dinos did. Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain. But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. :yikes: I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/little!

So, no progress, then? — Vera Mont

I think you already know this one quite well and need no examples to support my position. No, no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes or modern religions. This 'no progress' status quo is another reason why theism is so pernicious and why we should never restrict ourselves to disparate, cultural, shallow existences. I am all for respecting and allowing folks to practice and live within what they covet as traditional and cultural imperatives, as long as their freedom to do so, does not compromise the freedom of anyone else and does not impact anyone's human rights to food, water, shelter, bodily autonomy, economic parity, etc, etc. For me, your status as an Earthling will always be far more important than your status as an American, a Scot, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Palestinian or an Israeli.

I'm not persuaded (but maybe your panglossalalia is right). — 180 Proof

Come join we optimists, we miss you and Vera, we need you both with us!
The solar system will remain insignificant, if we optimists are too small in number and too low in volume to be heard above the din of despair.

To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive.
Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. Our solar system currently contains nothing more than meaningless objects that function much the same or with even less significance than the dinos did. Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain. — universeness

Meaningless objects? Dinosaurs and the solar system just a bunch of insignificant junk?
Your enthusiasm for human potential is admirable, but throwing absolute statements like this seems like cheerleading one would find in a school textbook from the 1950s: “Better living through chemistry! Soon we will be able to grow an acre of wheat in a petri dish!”

This is half the story at best, and it fails to mention that the textbooks were provided by Dow Chemical. :nerd:
The more modern techno-futurist at least gives lip service to human-made problems.
You may be engaging in a polemic and are taking an extreme position for argument sake maybe, but I need some more evidence.
Please don’t equate skepticism with hopelessness.

Humans do have the potential and have done much with our amazing brains!

But the first order of business seems to me to be sustainability, so tech with that in mind is of importance (such as the solar power @Vera Mont was discussing and has purchased).
How about floating cities for when the oceans flood the world’s coastal zones?

Better yet… can we use our minds to devise a way to stop the flooding?
Sadly, it may be too late but we don’t know that for sure and every rational solution must be considered.

But the powerful human minds, brilliant science, astounding technology are currently under the heel of authoritarian power that will not let anything exist which threatens its hegemony.
This is daunting and depressing, but it is the status quo that I’m generally observing.
To me, little real progress will be made under the dictatorship of the dollar.
(I hope I’m wrong about this, and would love to be convinced otherwise).

no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes — universeness

This is another sweeping statement.
The many many different indigenous peoples who lived in what is now called the Americas were definitely NOT a monolith, not a single entity following the same playbook.
Some tribes were simpler in their possessions, if that is what worked for them.

If you want cities and civilization, how about the Mayans? The Hohokam built an irrigation system that they abandoned, but was later used by settlers.
As a general rule, members of the tribes had a knowledge of flora, fauna, and environment that modern scientists would rightly envy.
Scientists today are working with tribes in the Amazon trying to catalog (and perhaps preserve) the immense number of plant species there before they are wiped out.

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line.
— universeness — universeness

I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity.
Even if they weren’t ‘sapiens’. :monkey:

Thanks for your input and time! :smile:

I thought I already told you! To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive — universeness

Why? If you don't survive, you sure can't thrive, evolve or progress.

Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. — universeness

Progress means to move in a designated direction. Choose the wrong direction and progress leads to a horrific demise. I think our forebears choose the wrong direction.

Our solar system — universeness

What god made it for your exclusive use?

Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain. — universeness

Their own. Yours. What for?

But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. — universeness

I didn't say we should be more like them. I said:

I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, — Vera Mont

I feel it is unnecessary for you to keep 'interpreting' my statements for me , as I usually know what I mean when I type them. *

so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts — universeness

You do understand that many animals (not crows or octopi) live in caves, fissures and burrows, while others construct elaborated homes and colonies. Humans learned construction from birds, insects, apes and the rodents

If you could see inside a woodrat’s house, you’d find a tidy little home: a nest bedroom or two lined with grasses and shredded bark; a pantry full of acorns and other seeds, leaves, and twigs for food; and several latrines for waste (a woodrat poops over 100 pellets a day!). The nests might have a few scattered California bay leaves to repel fleas. Food items that can be toxic when fresh (such as toyon leaves) are kept in a separate room to age before the rats move them to the pantry. When the latrines get full, woodrats clean house, shoving the pellets out into the forest, where they fertilize the soil.”

And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible.

I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/litte! — universeness

Suit yourself. As you are among the privileged who have choices.

The number of households that became homeless this year rose by 10% compared to the year before.

I don't believe any pre-Columbian American ever was.

For me, your status — universeness

I have more respect for individuals than to assign you a status.

The solar system will remain insignificant, if we optimists are too small in number and too low in volume to be heard above the din of despair. — universeness

I'm fine with the solar system being insignificant. I'm not despairing; I'm describing what I witness, articulating what I believe and expressing what I think. Quietly.

*or at least on the second or third edit. Occupational hazard, that.

You do understand that many animals (not crows or octopi) live in caves, fissures and burrows, while others construct elaborated homes and colonies. Humans learned construction from birds, insects, apes and the rodents.

“If you could see inside a woodrat’s house, you’d find a tidy little home: a nest bedroom or two lined with grasses and shredded bark; a pantry full of acorns and other seeds, leaves, and twigs for food; and several latrines for waste (a woodrat poops over 100 pellets a day!). The nests might have a few scattered California bay leaves to repel fleas. Food items that can be toxic when fresh (such as toyon leaves) are kept in a separate room to age before the rats move them to the pantry. When the latrines get full, woodrats clean house, shoving the pellets out into the forest, where they fertilize the soil.”

And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible. — Vera Mont

Excellent example! And it serves as an antidote to anthropocentric thinking. :up:

Sometimes (probably 10 times per day) we (myself included) need a little reminder that humans are not the emperors of the universe, and that pretending to be is dangerous hubris.

Science has given us much, but like spoiled children we cover our ears to the parts we don’t like.

It’s been proven that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos, that humans slowly evolved from simpler and slimier lifeforms, and that the world at its base is not constructed of indivisible solid
Lego-like atoms.

But the subtle lesson that we humans are part of a team which consists of everything and everyone we see around us (and much that is invisible) is about as appetizing as broccoli is to a child who has candy.

The floating city looks nice, but I have to wonder 1. where all the produce on those tables came from and 2. what percent of the urban population can afford to live there?
There are lots of excellent proposed arrangements for survivors - but no way any of them will work for the number of people in the world today. We already have over 6 million people in refugee camps, more an route, 150 million, and rising, homeless, as well as an uncountable number living hand-to-mouth in precarious conditions. That's simply unsustainable. And we haven't begun to account for the destruction of this pandemic of violence sweeping over the world.

Better yet… can we use our minds to devise a way to stop the flooding? — 0 thru 9

Not at this point. It would help to shut down the fossil fuel use and trans-ocean shipping. Unfortunately, we have no intelligent organization to move all those people out of the danger zone or relocate them in a safer place - assuming there are any safe places outside the billionnares' compounds.
Much could still be done to mitigate the inevitable damage - if the responsible agencies were given the resources and the power.

I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity. — 0 thru 9

It's not a very long history compared to dinosaurs. And anyway, doesn't consider the lifestyle of humans before European colonization worthy of notice, except with scorn. That makes the history of scientific progress very short indeed.

The floating city looks nice, but I have to wonder 1. where all the produce on those tables came from and 2. what percent of the urban population can afford to live there? — Vera Mont

Yes, I only mentioned this as an example of technology that’s at least trying to deal with climate change. (Another example was solar power, which seems to be more feasible at this point).
This particular one is rather pretentious and upper class on second glance: a new and improved Titanic .
The designers behind it are going for the big bucks, ‘upscale clientele’.
More dictatorship of the dollar…

Much could still be done to mitigate the inevitable damage - if the responsible agencies were given the resources and the power. — Vera Mont

Exactly. That’s about all we can do.

I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity.
— 0 thru 9
It's not a very long history compared to dinosaurs. — Vera Mont

We may be walking in their very large footsteps.
We have a choice, but time and physics stop for no one.

The album Synchronicity by The Police has many songs that seem timely:

Meaningless objects? Dinosaurs and the solar system just a bunch of insignificant junk? — 0 thru 9

I did not use the term junk, but you are welcome to offer your opinion on what, say Mercury or Mars is for? Do you think humans could give such objects more 'purpose' and/or meaning than they seem to have at present or do you think that some presence or current existent in the universe has a prior claim or a cunning plan for such that we are just not currently aware of?

You may be engaging in a polemic and are taking an extreme position for argument sake maybe, but I need some more evidence.
Please don’t equate skepticism with hopelessness. — 0 thru 9

No, just offering my own rationale. I am a fan of skepticism but not surrender monkey pessimism.

But the powerful human minds, brilliant science, astounding technology are currently under the heel of authoritarian power that will not let anything exist which threatens its hegemony.
This is daunting and depressing, but it is the status quo that I’m generally observing. — 0 thru 9

As long as you vote against and/or speak out against and/or protest against and/or actively campaign against those who perpetrate the circumstance you quote above. Then this highlights that you are at least doing what you can to help change the status quo for the better.

no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes
— universeness

This is another sweeping statement. — 0 thru 9

So give me examples of any theism from any group, past or present that you consider progressive. Please don't cite those who merely use a term such as 'progressive christian.' Identify what you consider a fundamental shift in doctrine that helped improve the human condition of all humans on this planet. For me, allowing such as female bishops or the popes recent comment that he 'might' allow some gay weddings to be performed by a priest, is not much progress in > 2000 years of religion. The variety of theism you suggest exists today or in the past within indigenous tribes is part of the problem, not part of the solution, imo. Part of the reason why I am an atheist is that I agree with Hitchens. "Religion is pernicious."

If you want cities and civilization, how about the Mayans? The Hohokam built an irrigation system that they abandoned, but was later used by settlers.
As a general rule, members of the tribes had a knowledge of flora, fauna, and environment that modern scientists would rightly envy.
Scientists today are working with tribes in the Amazon trying to catalog (and perhaps preserve) the immense number of plant species there before they are wiped out. — 0 thru 9

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, somewhere in my exchanges here. Where did I suggest that science or tech or knowledge from any indigenous people was in some way inferior or not worth investigating?

Yes, I only mentioned this as an example of technology that’s at least trying to deal with climate change. — 0 thru 9

I know. It's not a bad idea. There are other examples that appear more homey Check out the solar panels! And some are quite attractive. A low-tech option for Luddites, and one with a personal modern touch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El6AU3riRI8 (I don't know whether the link will work)
Guess which is my favourite.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, somewhere in my exchanges here. Where did I suggest that science or tech or knowledge from any indigenous people was in some way inferior or not worth investigating? — universeness

But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. :yikes: I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/little! — universeness

That sounds very much as if adobe villages showed no 'progress' since a crow's nest and collapsible tipis were no improvement on the first octopus carrying a coconut shell to hide under, while a concrete high-rise were vastly superior to all of them.

[Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now.]

Both seem quite bad to me! — universeness

Equally? How familiar are you with Native American theology?

Why? If you don't survive, you sure can't thrive, evolve or progress. — Vera Mont

Sure, so you agree then that we need to do all of the above, yes?

Progress means to move in a designated direction. Choose the wrong direction and progress leads to a horrific demise. I think our forebears choose the wrong direction. — Vera Mont

So, you and I both advocate for 'changes for the better,' we are simply debating the form and focus that those changes need to take. So far so good!

What god made it for your exclusive use? — Vera Mont

No god has contacted me, protesting the idea, how about you?

Their own. Yours. What for? — Vera Mont

For such as this:
We embarked on our cosmic voyage with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. - Carl Sagan.

I feel it is unnecessary for you to keep 'interpreting' my statements for me , as I usually know what I mean when I type them. * — Vera Mont

I have no choice but to interpret your meaning if I find it unclear or ambiguous. I am sure you will continue to clarify your position, If you think I am misinterpreting you. I will do the same.

I didn't say we should be more like them. I said: — Vera Mont

I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, — Vera Mont

If you suggest that your personal level of enlightenment has no more value than that demonstrated by an octopus or a crow, then yes, I do find that to be a very low bar. I see an enormous range of enlightenment;ightenment between different humans. I see no such range from crow to crow or octopus to octopus. I am not an expert in observing the individual 'enlightenment' demonstrations between individual crows etc, and I am willing to be corrected by experts in that particular field, if you have any source of such. I have 59 years of experience of observing the differences in demonstrated enlightenment levels between human and imo, they have far more value than that demonstrated by the crows and octopi I have personally watched or observed via TV docs. If you disagree then that's ok. I assume you remain open to discussing your position?

And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible. — Vera Mont

Are woodrat homes, impervious to such as is underlined in your quote, or a myriad of other happenings?
I think our main disagreement here is that you think we could learn so much more than we have demonstrated we understand about how certain fauna and some indigenous tribes of humans can live more in harmony with our planets ecological balance. I do not dispute that, but I disagree that the general direction and desire for human progress, is destructive and malevolent. Only the nefarious amongst us, those who worship personal profit or religious prophets, cause such imbalances, imo.

And anyway, ↪universeness doesn't consider the lifestyle of humans before European colonization worthy of notice, except with scorn. — Vera Mont

Now it's you who are misinterpreted me. Quote where I suggested this. I do not scorn such, but I do think we have progressed since then, in most areas but not all. We have not progressed in our relationship with primal fear and the notion of competition and religion to the extent we could have, if we had rejected such notions as 'elites' and 'gods,' far earlier in our history.