Sure, so you agree then that we need to do all of the above, yes? — universeness
So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition.No god has contacted me, protesting the idea, how about you? — universeness
I have no choice but to interpret your meaning if I find it unclear or ambiguous. — universeness
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. — universeness
If you disagree then that's ok. I assume you remain open to discussing your position? — universeness
Are woodcut home impervious to such as is underlined in your quote, or a myriad of other happenings? — universeness
I do not dispute that, but I disagree that the general direction and desire for human progress, is destructive and malevolent. — 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. — Vera Mont
Equally? How familiar are you with Native American theology? — Vera Mont
I could be persuaded that building human communities that looked more like Hobbiton or Rivendell, would be nice and more ecologically balanced, but only if such could accommodate a population such as Tokyo or New Delhi. — universeness
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? — universeness
So give me examples of any theism from any group, past or present that you consider progressive. — universeness
I agree with Hitchens. "Religion is pernicious." — universeness
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
No fight needed, nor 'plundering' suggested. I choose not to anthropomorphise the planets in the solar system but I do want to give them new purpose and significance, in ways that allow our species to move beyond this little pale blue dot. Unless there are really good rational reasons why humans should not do this. So far I have not heard any compelling reasons against.So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition. — Vera Mont
Not sure what a woodcut home is. — Vera Mont
I often do, I assume you do to. I further assume that doing so from now, until the first human settlement on the moon and then mars, will not change your opinion. Yes, I do know neither of us will be around when that happens, but, it will happen!Then you need to take a look around. — Vera Mont
What do you think their meaning or purpose is? — 0 thru 9
Mere varieties of the same basic concept imo.Their way was more pantheistic and animist. — 0 thru 9
No, atheism has no saints or evahellicals, just skeptical thinkers. Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty, Jimmy Snow, Dave Warnock, Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and many many more. Some also use more flowery handles such as Gutsick Gibbon, Evewasframed, Paulogia etc. Mr Hitchens was a great addition to such folks, imo.Hitchens, the patron saint of modern atheists. His evangelical zeal has converted many. — 0 thru 9
I am glad you brought it up, as such clarifications are very important to me.Apologies if I misunderstood! Glad to hear that then. — 0 thru 9
No fight needed, nor 'plundering' suggested. I choose not to anthropomorphise the planets in the solar system but I do want to give them new purpose and significance, in ways that allow our species to move beyond this little pale blue dot. — universeness
So far I have not heard any compelling reasons against. — universeness
Yes, I do know neither of us will be around when that happens, but, it will happen! — universeness
Whose "despair"? Those who are most frightened of "despair" cling to happy-ever-after daydreams in denial of ubiquitous evidence to the contrary (e.g. fossils, natural selection, entropy). 'Prepare (oneself) for the worst, strive for the best and roll with whatever comes' takes courage, mate (e.g. the courage to overcome – outgrow – self-flattering, faith-based anthropocentrisms whether religious or utopian).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. — universeness
Maybe in 300 years. — Vera Mont
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. — universeness
I'm "optimistic", so to speak, that our – only intelligent enough to create problems which it can solve only by increasing suffering – species is on the verge of 'saving itself from itself' either by bringing about AGI—>ASI or our own premature extinction (or both). I'm looking forward to 'encountering' the butterfly artilects which might come after us caterpillar h. sapiens. After all, universeness, fires only ever "become" smoke & ashes, though errant sparks can also light other fires (e.g. the Sun > biomorphs (intellects) > infomorphs ...) — 180 Proof
I for one, am overjoyed by that timeframe. — universeness
Don't ask how it will be used or by whom, for what purpose; shut up and calculate.It is the responsibility of scientists never to suppress knowledge, no matter how awkward that knowledge is, no matter how it may bother those in power; we are not smart enough to decide which pieces of knowledge are permissible and which are not.
I appreciate your very unambiguous statement here. I will continue to celebrate my anthropocentric position and suggest that your position is the one that is more akin to an extreme idealism, but it's been a fun exchange. I thought you had assigned some significant credibility to my suggestion that in the future, humans will live their life span, as they do now (also enjoying any extra longevity science is able to offer, without too much invasive augmentation) and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont. Why do you think this is so unlikely?Your anthropocentric optimism (à la utopianism, transhumanism, space operatics, etc) is much too much like religious idealism for me, mate. — 180 Proof
Yes, I do; however, my guess is, if it ever happens, your "suggestion" will only apply to less than a few percent of the human population, mate (the other +97% being "surplus" and obstacles to AGI–>ASI's re-terraforming (re-wilding) this burning, toxic Earth).I thought you had assigned some significant credibility to my suggestion that in the future, humans will live their life span, as they do now (also enjoying any extra longevity science is able to offer, without too much invasive augmentation) ... — universeness
When post-Singularity "death" becomes optional, my guess is that "hybrid orga/mecha" symbiosis will also be optional (just as some version of 'complete transfer of an individual's CNS personality-functions from the baseline (macro) biological substrate to a (micro / nano) synthetic substrate' will also be optional). Again, only for the tiniest fraction (needed for h. sapiens genetic viability) of the extant human population. 'Uplifted' h. sapiens will also be specialized for long duration travel / permanently living in space – "replicants" won't be needed as disposable labor (slaves) in "the off-world colonies" because the "off-world" colonists themselves will actually be "replicants" (or maybe – more like – "synthetics" from the Alien movies).... and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont.
It seems that, from my reading of histories, at least 19 out of 20 humans have never been anything more than disposable labor in the ten-twenty millennia of (complex, urbanized) civilization – oligarchic dominance hierarchies – and that there aren't any grounds to believe 'the future' will be any less exclusionist with the advent of AGI-accelerated technosciences, especially as that +95% of human beings won't even be needed by then either (1) as exploitable labor or (2) to contribute to & maintain a viable gene pool. Policy-makers in 'the developed world' have been discussing implimenting UBS & global population controls (i.e. "thinning the herds") for a couple of decades now as automation and nonrenewable resources-depletion have accelerated. What I think is "unlikely", universeness, is a post-Singularity – post-scarcity! – future that will, at most, beneficially incorporate more than few million (baseline) human beings. My friend, I'm confident that none of the few will "walk away from Omelas" in solidarity with the masses of Malthusian, climate refugees left behind.Why do you think this is so unlikely?
:smirk:... true believer optimism ... Roddenberryesque utopia ... I say all this as someone who once said the things you [@universeness] say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal
I think we have already started, but your 300 years suspension may well be required, depending on whether or not the wars and threats we are currently experiencing can be contained and survived. — universeness
I say all this as someone who once said the things you say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal
If I am fanatical then so are you. — universeness
What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. Do you think being fanatical about truth, is a negative, if what is professed does turn out to be true? — universeness
It seems that, from my reading of histories, at least 19 out of 20 humans have never been anything more than disposable labor in the ten-twenty millennia of (complex, urbanized) civilization – oligarchic dominance hierarchies – and that there aren't any grounds to believe 'the future' will be any less exclusionist with the advent of AGI-accelerated technosciences, especially as that +95% of human beings won't even be needed by then either (1) as exploitable labor or (2) to contribute to & maintain a viable gene pool. Policy-makers in 'the developed world' have been discussing implimenting UBS & global population controls (i.e. "thinning the herds") for a couple of decades now as automation and nonrenewable resources-depletion have accelerated. What I think is "unlikely", universeness, is a post-Singularity – post-scarcity! – future that will, at most, beneficially incorporate more than few million (baseline) human beings. My friend, I'm confident that none of the few will "walk away from Omelas" in solidarity with the masses of Malthusian, climate refugees left behind. — 180 Proof
will only apply to less than a few percent of the human population — 180 Proof
It's a negative. The point is that fanaticism is a bad approach to the truth, because it doesn't actually care about it. — Jamal
Your level of conflation here is rather disappointing and way below your usual standards imo. — universeness
What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. — universeness
I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here! — 0 thru 9
I absolutely understand such concerns and your choice to hold such a position.I was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned. — 0 thru 9
I would jump at the chance! But not in a fanatical way, :grin: I would want to know a lot more about the protective gear on offer and my chances of returning. I would need a complete new body however as I am a 1 year away from 60, unfit, but still pretty, guy who still enjoys too much beers and cheers at the weekend, to be an astronaut/space farer.If we drag ourselves out of the mud, and get our act together, the skies the limit!
And I hope you’re the first person to walk on the surface of Mercury. :starstruck: (just kidding) — 0 thru 9
Yes, sorry I threw a little mud on your idol. I did like him. I suppose I was annoyed by your frequent use of the quotes in big fat letters. Plus, I'm not a fan of monuments. I didn't tear him down, though,
and that little dab of mud won't stick. It's plain to see how much of a change in the attitude of those "powers" his testimony made. — Vera Mont
Pick your Truth, raise your flag, look not to right nor left. Charge!
Some of us find your central assumptions... let's say, not squarely grounded. So we're looking to different sources for little truths to assemble an image of the world as it actually is. — Vera Mont
Stop trying to steal Jamals descriptions of my psyche. — universeness
No, at least not in the style of 'the charge of the light brigade.' — universeness
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.