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

The first is essential. The second is desirable and possible. The third is provisional: depends on which way "progress" leads us.

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

So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition.

I have no choice but to interpret your meaning if I find it unclear or ambiguous. — universeness

It's neither, as a rule. But if it is, clarification seems to me more appropriate than translation into a language I don't wish to speak.

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

I didn't suggest it: I stated it quite distinctly. I learned what is necessary to know in my life, as other creatures also learn what is necessary to know in their lives. I do not acknowledge a "bar" or any standard of relative valuation, let alone your authority to set such a bar for anyone other than yourself.

If you disagree then that's ok. I assume you remain open to discussing your position? — universeness

Of values, what for? Both yours and mine are pretty solid; they won't change via argument.

Are woodcut home impervious to such as is underlined in your quote, or a myriad of other happenings? — universeness

Not sure what a woodcut home is. Most human shelters currently are constructed of some combination of concrete, steel, lumber and brick. We could compare earthquake and flood casualties casualties in various structures. I don't know what the tally would be, but I know what I would prefer to be inside when a disaster struck - which happens and will happen with increasing frequency and severity - and it's not a highrise.

I do not dispute that, but I disagree that the general direction and desire for human progress, is destructive and malevolent. — universeness

Then you need to take a better look around.

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

Not at all. An adobe village is better than cave dwelling or living in a tent. A high rise with full access to services such as light, heat, water and good waste disposal systems are better than an adobe village, a crows nest or living under coconut shells. Aesthetically? A high rise? Meh!

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. I do also like the city layout suggested by the Venus project.

Equally? How familiar are you with Native American theology? — Vera Mont

Only what I choose to google or get from proud.native.americans on threads, when I ask them.

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

That can't happen. Only the well-off will be saved; the slums will be washed or burned away.
No, Venus cities can't absorb New Delhi, either. The proposed floating ones including that bizarre skyscraper, still look like prisons.

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

The planets are here doing their thing, and will be doing it until the sun explodes. :sparkle:
If someone wants to gaze at them, or write a symphony for them, that’s fine.
What do you think their meaning or purpose is?

So give me examples of any theism from any group, past or present that you consider progressive. — universeness

I am not an apologist for Religion in general, especially its many corruptions and crimes.
The Native American view of the spiritual realm is different enough from Civilizational Religion that using the word ‘theism’ strikes me as overly simplistic and perhaps dismissive.
Their way was more pantheistic and animist.

I agree with Hitchens. "Religion is pernicious." — universeness

Hitchens, the patron saint of modern atheists. His evangelical zeal has converted many. :snicker:

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

Apologies if I misunderstood! Glad to hear that then. :up:

So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition. — Vera Mont

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.

Not sure what a woodcut home is. — Vera Mont

did not notice that my autocorrect system had changed woodrat to woodcut. I have edited the sentence since I noticed the error.

Then you need to take a look around. — 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!

What do you think their meaning or purpose is? — 0 thru 9

I asked you first, but ok, I'll bite. When Hilary was asked why he climbed Everest, he said "because it's there." I think we are the only species we know of that can create meaning and purpose, to the level we demonstrate. I do not see any evidence that any kind of meaning or purpose exists, until life exists in the universe.
So unless there is a source of serious objection, outside of the human race, we can assign/create meaning and purpose for the planets in the solar system. Any objections?

Their way was more pantheistic and animist. — 0 thru 9

Mere varieties of the same basic concept imo.

Hitchens, the patron saint of modern atheists. His evangelical zeal has converted many. — 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.

Apologies if I misunderstood! Glad to hear that then. — 0 thru 9

I am glad you brought it up, as such clarifications are very important to me.

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

Yes, I understand this. Impose your meaning, your purpose on everything.

So far I have not heard any compelling reasons against. — universeness

Only because you don't want to. The arguments have been made, though this one does not even touch on the pragmatic issues: what it costs, where the funding and resources come from, what is cut to make them available, who directs the project(s), who participates, who benefits, how much of space is likely to be weaponized as a result ... None of those arguments are compelling to someone who keeps saying "We just have to make the right choices." or words to that effect. Humanity's record of choice-making does not bide fair for such an undertaking at the present time. Maybe in 300 years.

Yes, I do know neither of us will be around when that happens, but, it will happen! — universeness

Maybe. If the Russians and Americans and Chinese leaders and statesmen don't blow us up in the next couple of weeks, and the climate doesn't burn/wash/sweep us away in the next couple of decades.

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

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).

I'm "optimistic", so to speak, that our species – only intelligent enough to create problems which we can solve only by increasing suffering – 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 ...)

:sparkle:

""The thing's hollow -- it goes on forever -- and -- oh my God! -- it's full of stars!"" ~Dave Bowman encounters the Monolith, 2001: A Space Odyssey

Maybe in 300 years. — Vera Mont

I for one, am overjoyed by that timeframe. I would happily accept a zero or even three zeros added to the end of your number. Such time scales are insignificant in the cosmic calendar.
We have found a negotiated settlement Vera! I am very willing indeed to wait your 300 years. I am glad to read that you have some confidence that our species will get our priorities and behaviours ready to start moving off planet within the next 300 years.

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

Carl reckoned we have lingered here long enough but I think he would have also accepted your call for 'an extra 300 years,' needed. If it gained the majority vote. I think we should start now and with the current moves being made towards space exploration and development, 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.

I think more and more people are sick of the shit, that causes such wars as Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza.
UB40 said it best: The quickest way to end the war is drop your guns and walk away.

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

And 'up from the ashes,' springs future monoliths. I suppose, as long as you are not 100% convinced that we are doomed to extinction, you don't belong in the surrender monkey, sad old pessimist category. Shall you sit with us optimists or will you remain standing, searching for Dave's monolith?

We're a biological species – biomorphs, mortals – so of course "I'm 100% convinced we're doomed to extinction" (self-inflicted or otherwise). As I've said many times: while I'm pessimistic about (human) life, I'm optimistic for nonbiological intelligences. IMO, h. species will leave its mark on the cosmos only by bringing about AGI (infomorphs ... which might it turn, sometime after human obsolescence/extinction is fait accompli, bring about 'pocket universe simulating artilects' like Clarke/Kubrick's Monolith). Your anthropocentric optimism (à la utopianism, transhumanism, space operatics, etc) is much too much like religious idealism for me, mate. :fire: :eyes:

I for one, am overjoyed by that timeframe. — universeness

Don't forget the Maybe. If. Would that work better for you in bold, with a Sagan quote appended?
Maybe IF

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.

Don't ask how it will be used or by whom, for what purpose; shut up and calculate.

Your anthropocentric optimism (à la utopianism, transhumanism, space operatics, etc) is much too much like religious idealism for me, mate. — 180 Proof

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?


I think you misinterpret Carl with "Don't ask how it will be used and by whom, for what purpose."
Carl spent a lot of his time trying to speak truth to those in power, during his lifetime.
Here he is, doing so to a Senate committee in 1985!
The opening speaker even mentions Chicken Little!


You further ignore the context under which 'shut up and calculate' was used.
David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced. Mermin described the Copenhagen interpretation as coming in different "versions", "varieties", or "flavors".
Like your bad use of a Carl Sagan quote, the Mermin quote had nothing at all, to do with ignoring how nefarious individuals use scientific discovery, in the way your sentence I copied and placed in quotes above, tries to suggest. Your level of conflation here is rather disappointing and way below your usual standards imo.

I think your true believer optimism is pretty brutal, not all that far from bloodthirsty utilitarianism (the ends justify the means). In the end, it just doesn’t matter what people have to go through to reach your Roddenberryesque utopia, so long as we get there. 300 years? Fine! Add more zeros!

This is what I meant in another discussion when I said that I’m inclined these days to “hope without optimism,” for which pain and suffering are essential.

I say all this as someone who once said the things you say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism.

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

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).

... and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont.

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).

Why do you think this is so unlikely?

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.

... 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

:smirk:

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 was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned.
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)

I say all this as someone who once said the things you say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal

What I am surprised about, is that you can't see that your impression of my fanaticism could be a product of your own. Perhaps even a result of moving from your position of someone who "once said the things I said" to someone who seems fanatical about your current opposition to such.

Such viewpoints remind me of a character portrayed in the book, the ragged trousered philanthropists. A hard working socialist, who worked his heart and soul/shoe soles, to fight for justice, and a more equitable life for all people. But all he ever gets back is grief and mostly from those he was working so hard to try to help.
He joined the capitalists and found his solace and his revenge there.

I am not suggesting that fully describes you, I am just saying your complaints against me, remind me of such. If I am fanatical then so are you.
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?

I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism. — Jamal

I’m a little disappointed that my fanaticism is being overlooked. Imho, with all due respect I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here!

(Uh, while staying within Forum guidelines, of course :hearts: )

while staying within Forum guidelines, of course — 0 thru 9

Whether you actually do or not is me to decide, 0 thru 9. :razz:

But of course. I’m fanatical, not dumb! :blush:

If I am fanatical then so are you. — universeness

I don't think you've shown this to anyone's satisfaction except your own. I'm not saying you're fanatical just because I disagree with you. Having a contrary opinion is not in itself fanatical.

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's a negative. The point is that fanaticism is a bad approach to the truth, because it doesn't actually care about it.

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

I find some of your positions quite confusing:
In your post scarcity system I assume that the ASI is the most powerful existent and is independent of human control and human ability to challenge its control over all human life, yes? We continue to live only with its sanction, yes?

The universe is vast. 8 billion human existents is absolutely tiny in comparison with even the number of stars in the Milky Way. I don't understand your idea around how very advanced mecha based intelligence, would view the usefulness of the human being as a motivated creature who has a demonstrated almost insatiable compulsion to boldly go ......
I think they would need a lot more than 8 billion of us.
Why are you restricting how ASI will treat humans to your knowledge of how some humans have treated other humans?

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

I agree that irrational fanaticism is a negative. The love a parent has for a child can be a negative if, as an obsession, it is damaging the psyche and well-being of the child, but a fanatical impulse to protect your offspring from harm, is normally considered a positive and is in fact also a natural imperative for all species. Not all intense or deeply held emotional attractions to an idea, a goal or even an object is negative imo.

I celebrate my core anthropocentrism, as I am convinced that the best attribute humans have, is there ability and overwhelming compulsion, to pose questions and seek new knowledge. That is why we deserve to survive imo, as we know of no other lifeform, that does this to the extent we do.
You are correct that I am not concerned about how long it takes us to discover any piece of new knowledge. But you are completely wrong to suggest than I don't care what it costs to get there.
I already accepted that if reducing suffering means that we have to wait another x years to progress, because we have so many other problems to deal with first, then I support this, if the evidence continues to be as apparent as it is now. Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, the climate change threat, economic imbalance, hunger, abuse of minorities etc, etc all do make me push back the priority of focus on scientific advancement. I complain constantly that the actions of the nefarious f***wits amongst us, and the pernicious every day affects of shit like religion and the money trick, hold us back as a species.
If you consider such complaints fanatic then I think your complaint about the targets of my complaining, is fanatical, or perhaps just irrational.

Your level of conflation here is rather disappointing and way below your usual standards imo. — universeness

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.

What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. — universeness

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.

I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here! — 0 thru 9

Except me!

I was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned. — 0 thru 9

I absolutely understand such concerns and your choice to hold such a position.

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

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.

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

Apology accepted, and another demonstration of why I think you are an honest interlocutor Vera!
and yes, even though he tried his damnedest, the fools in the senate committee at the time, took no significant action, as a result of Carl's warnings. Everything he predicted regarding climate change proved accurate.

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

No, at least not in the style of 'the charge of the light brigade.' I would have stopped such a charge when I saw the cannon to the left and the cannon to the right, as well as the cannon to the front.

As for the rest of this paragraph, I think such actions are absolutely required, for you to earn the healthy title of skeptic. I never accept anything anyones states as truth, merely because they said so.

I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here! — 0 thru 9

Except me! — Vera Mont

Stop trying to steal @Jamals descriptions of my psyche.

Stop trying to steal Jamals descriptions of my psyche. — universeness

My response was neither to nor about you. Sorry.

No, at least not in the style of 'the charge of the light brigade.' — universeness

I didn't say that. It's simply that you seem committed to a version of the truth that doesn't very closely resemble my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.