Some people cannot imagine life could be different. Suffering shapes their conception of the human predicament and life itself. — David Pearce

This is my point essentially. Let's not pretend you've never suffered. Without it, you and these "some people" are one and the same. We're just circling back, essentially. What you claim to wish to eliminate not only nurtured you but in fact created you! Sure, as a creation progresses it wishes or desires to eliminate that which hampers its own progression but at what cost?

Other people have tasted paradise and want the world to share their vision. — David Pearce

Again, this "other people" and yourself appear to be one and the same.

Environmentally-based utopian experiments fail. — David Pearce

Of course, any otherwise successful experiment can be interrupted of perhaps halted by a skeptical, perhaps even religious (though they'll never admit it) interlocutor. What of it?

Potentially, elevated pain thresholds, hedonic range and hedonic set-points can underpin a richer personal quality of life for all, but the manifold social, economic and political problems of society are left unaddressed. — David Pearce

Yes, and potentially a currently unproven theory, like yours, and perhaps God, can allow me to fly after jumping off a cliff. These are all in the same bucket of unproven theories. My main question is as follows: what is a "rich" personal quality?

It's not because you are happy and successful for no merit or purpose where others are the same, it's because there is something to stand on so to speak.

The end of suffering will still be the most momentous revolution in the history of sentience. — David Pearce

I don't disagree diametrically however I do disagree tangentially. Let us hearken back to the basics. There is no love without something to hate. No joy without something to annoy. No fun without something to bore. Is this true or false, young David

Let us open our religious books of olde and read from start to finish. Perhaps somewhere therein lies the answer. Something new, something old. Something forged, something formed by whatever forces may be. It all depends. Many things breathe. Few have the desire to use this breath to help that which does not immediately or inevitably help oneself. This is the essence of compassion and true love, the antithesis of which is indifference, which distinguishes man from the animal. Usually.

I believe soul transcends spirit, capitalized or not. Of course, I may be incorrect in my understanding, as may you. I believe the human form has a capacity for spirit that animals may inherently not, of course, beliefs are a dime a dozen these days. Not to tout this as an absolute net positive, there are many bad spirits among us.

And he's wrong because he assumes objective, God given moral facts. — counterpunch

What if God in the contexts of many is not a supernatural being or entity but the simple idea of absoluteness. Do you not assume the role of God in this case by asserting what others assert to be as you interpret it? What makes your particular claim here, which you undoubtedly assert as inarguable and absolute, any different from the idea of a God given moral fact?

After all, if there weren’t something fundamentally wrong with our human default state of consciousness, then would we try so hard to change it? — David Pearce

The grass is always greener on the other side. We want what we can't or at least don't have. Perhaps this is what you refer to? This is what it means to be human. The curse of want and desire. Without this, what differentiates a transhuman from a robot clothed in flesh?

What is not spirit? Your accepted definition will hinge solely upon this. One answer, the one I believe in, is kind of spooky or metaphysical if not simply unrealistic. Religious one could say. In more broader terms, it is what develops from what is not spirit, or rather what is biological. I can get angry or upset because someone attacks me, this is biological. But how I respond to it in my own unique way.. becomes part of who I am. This is my spirit perhaps? "He's in good spirits" or "the kid has spirit" generally refers to personality or energetic motivation, "spunk" some would say.

- delete post if not complete or coherent, am tired-

@David Pearce The following is more of an enthusiastic engagement, that recalls or calls upon several truths you assert in your premise. The very thing you call savage and cruel or even stupid, Darwinian existence, is the thing that formed you and your beliefs, this is nothing other a fact in would seem. So, seeing as Hell creates Heaven it would appear, again from your own statements, what of the following theory.

Ok I remember. I was watching a government ad about the dangers of smoking, some woman lost half her face or something. Alright. So. What if, we endure these horrors, and one day, those who do things that are hazardous to our current biology (smoking, drinking in excess, etc.) continue to do so and yes suffer resulting in a later generation that is no longer subject to the diseases of their predecessors. Meaning, the more we smoke, drink, and yes some will die and suffer horribly, but those who live, will be a generation where they can enjoy the pleasures of smoking and drinking and I suppose for sake of argument other dangerous drugs, without these horrid effects. Isn't the natural system creating transhumans already, per se?

I understand your argument is wishing to skip this altogether, either by simply having no need to indulge in harmful substances for we will already be at bliss. But nevertheless there will always be more bliss to be had, if not is this not a prison your movement attempts to create? People will always seek more pleasure. Will they not?

An adult male generally has.. less room to pass the buck than say a vulnerable young woman or troubled youth does. Especially in the absence of a more dominant or controlling authority figure ie. political leader or international record label promoting songs which genres are known to have a young and reckless demographic.

You sound passionate, David. I've asked this before and perhaps you may feel annoyed even by responding again but let this if nothing else be a rhetorical question.

What interests you? Why is that? Perhaps because there is a problem to be solved. Imagine sitting in a room full of "solved" or completed Rubix cubes. Would you not wish for someone if not even yourself to twist one toward unexpected parameters? I once again challenge you to try this setting for yourself. And perhaps you may see, there is fire and water for a reason.

Wow, can you imagine the boredom of being in a spaceship flying to another galaxy? To see what? — Metaphysician Undercover

"When you observe nature you will learn it is the pleasure of the bee to gather the honey from the flower"

What are we not doing here and now? Earth is a.. vessel of a sort. Perhaps we may be going somewhere, perhaps not. Is the Sun the greatest gravitational body in the Universe? Not by far.

To see what? Is the reveal not the greatest part of the trick? As you said, ignorance is bliss, mystery is the spice of life, and knowledge is Hell. Perhaps?

Being submissive and disguising it as dominance and following and bowing to the attitudes and views of real men who in reality seek your own self-inflicted destruction and punishment and on occasion real women and conforming to a society that claims to be one is exclusively by doing as described.

I know of no reason why the "raw feels" of experience below hedonic zero need conserving. — David Pearce

Honestly, I don't see the problem! — David Pearce

Have you ever suffered, David? Ever noticed or experienced hardship enough to motivate you to do something .. oh apparently you have as this is the purported moral and intellectual basis of this movement of yours. Where would you be without these occurrences? How impactful do you think they were for spurring positive change? Apparently great, if your mission is so dire. So tell me. What motivation, drive, and desire will others expect in your envisioned world? Any drive to even get out of bed? Any at all? Some may argue, this idea damns those confined by it to an even worse fate then the current mitigated Darwinian hell we have (civilized society, manners, rules, occasional decency, etc.). Your response?

When I look upon a blob of clay, I see good; not because I see potential for it to be molded into something good (for it could just as well be molded into something bad) but because a blob of clay is good in and of itself, regardless of what we do to it, or what it might become later. Man is not the measure of all things. — James Riley

This is a good analogy. Hm, what to add? I suppose based on the savage and chaotic environment in which we live (violent collisions of rock and dust creating planets, among other things), perhaps those who remain good are in fact excellent and those who turn bad aren't completely terrible. Hard to say. Depending on whose grave you stand on to speak, of course.

I don't share that view of human nature, and frankly I think attempts at psychoanalyzing complete strangers sooner point towards projection. — Tzeentch

Nor do you have to, for it was already done for you. You can ignore the hand that fed you and is responsible for your existence, but you'll never be free from it. Human history is human history, it is as plain as day to be observed, be it from a textbook or archeology. I make no assertions otherwise. Perhaps you're different, the exception. Oh but when salt pours, you'll be no different than the rest. You wouldn't be here now if so.

Then shame on whoever did that claiming. — Tzeentch

Oh shame is not relevant, that is a human emotion. What is mandated comes from beyond and is not only ever-reaching but everlasting.

I believe what I stated, and this is just an underhanded (and sleep-inducingly old) attempt at framing it as selfishness.

What makes you believe I am so fond of the status quo? — Tzeentch

Human nature. One wants better for themselves. You believe that by toppling the giant greater enjoyment can be had, but perhaps it is protecting you from greater torment and despair. You wouldn't know. This is the folly of men.

I think any claims to another's essential freedom is to be looked down upon and dismissed. One of the few claims for which I think that to be the case. Would you object to this? — Tzeentch

What if your ability to live where, in the manner in which you've become accustomed and act as you please and state what you state is the sole result of claiming the essential freedoms of another? Odds are it was. So, you don't quite believe this, you believe in protecting a familiar status quo that serves you and little more, just another case of looking out for number one. Don't we all I suppose.

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

People have themselves to look out for. Meanwhile you need to eat, drink, have access to shelter, maybe a little entertainment, and social interaction. Who's going to do or provide all that for you if not yourself? Me? Your neighbor? Who will provide for him? And so on. We're not in Eden anymore. We're all slaves to our biology, human needs that must be met with limited resources. Unless you believe in enslavement of others to meet these needs, one would best saddle up and smell the coffee.

There are reasons isolated pockets of civilization are beneficial. Example, if a contagion is released or all-out war unfolds (ie. the place goes down the tubes) at least not everyone has to die or be afflicted by whatever as well. Corruption also, everybody can kind of "watch each other" and call out egregious abuses against those who commit it with no one entity ever being able to so easily or casually "overpower" the collective might of "everyone".

Transparency and accountability, best defense against the tyrannical and beastly abomination that is unrestrained human nature with all it's greed and indifference.

You could write a novel or even a screenplay and hope people take to it. Who knows, they might. Creativity is and has always been in high demand. Though like an old teacher of mine would say "everything that can be done, has been done", his view was that any "new works" are really just rehashes, even if not intentionally and are born from one's own uninfluenced mind.

Surely, the only reason one can object to an individual choosing the path of freedom is because one fears one may lose their hold on him. — Tzeentch

Assuredly, the one and only reason, no other option you dictate and expect or will look down on or dismiss others if not agreed upon. How curious and double-edged this concept is.

Far too often men confuse freedom with abandonment of responsibility, which transmutes to power that will simply be assumed and dominated by those who forgot not these truths.

The claim: aging, death, disease, cognitive infirmity and indeed involuntary suffering of any kind are wrong. A transhumanist civilization of superlongevity, superintelligence and superhappiness can overcome these ancient evils. If we act wisely, then future life will be sublime. — David Pearce

David, thou art a gentleman and a scholar of the highest degree. Here and now that is. Your presence and engagement here is appreciated beyond the words received. I would much enjoy to share a few drinks with you at your preferred pub in your native England, what's left of it that is. That said, if you don't mind, what are your responses to the following criticisms of the words or rather common understandings and generally assumed beliefs behind:

Aging: Is this not proof of progress? Proof of the journey at the destination? A fine wine is aged, and is worth a considerable amount. Perhaps you refer to the physical and biological affects of aging being essentially decreased ability and fortitude. Well, in a race with no timer, why bother to move?

Death: I view death as a necessity in this world, not as you might think however but more of an escape hatch. For example, being trapped in a cave. In such a scenario one would rather starve to death then sit there for eternity. It's complicated, though without death what appreciation would there be for life really, would it not simply be just another prison?

Disease: I'm a firm believer in overpopulation, that things happen for a reason. If I were to be infirmed myself in a clinical setting perhaps I would be encouraged to rethink this, if not revealed as somewhat of a hypocrite. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and what one brings upon themselves (this is to exclude random cases of illness) one should learn or at least desire to pass on a lesson.

Cognitive infirmity: While I don't have an effectual or "actual" philosophical counterargument or "justification" for as it's a simple biological reality, I'll offer an anecdote. Well a sentence that one can be derived from. There's two water guns, the first ones which casually lose pressure as the tank depletes, and the newer ones (granted from a score ago) that maintain constant pressure (CPS "constant pressure system") until the tank is actually depleted. Which would you prefer?

Involuntary suffering: Welcome to Earth or life. Is it a blessing or curse? A reward or a sentence? Either way we're all going to be here for possibly a while, best do your time. There's no true escape, David. Other than to avoid true eternal bliss.

--

Onto your three supers:

Longevity: Again, I challenge you to be alone or perhaps even with friends (or more realistically mixed company who hold opposing views to yours as this is reality) for an extended period. Everything is fine, no one has to worry about anything, all needs are met, and it's just you and other people. How long could you take it? Until you do this, some may say, accurately I might add, you're just talking or blowing smoke. A non-religious person (ie. when you die, you're dead and cease to exist in any possible, real or imagined form or state of existence) one of course would cleave to this like a frightened lamb in the presence of a pack of wolves.. and this is the only reality that can be proven so is thus understandable, but what if we don't really know all there is to know? Can you not be wrong?

Intelligence: Simply put, they say ignorance is bliss. Perhaps they could be wrong. Perhaps you may be. Let me ask you, what were the best times of your life? I'll wager money that it was discovering new things, emotions, or moments. You know I'm right. What fun is a game you've already beat or a book you've already read compared to one you haven't?

Happiness: What is happiness? Why would one seek or even value peace if one could never pursue or make war? Love if one never knew hate or fun if one never knew boredom? Duality I believe some speak of. They may have it wrong or corrupted but perhaps they don't. What makes you happy David, if you don't mind sharing? What makes you sad? Why is that? If either were removed (incidents, experiences, or knowledge behind said emotions), would you feel the same toward the other?

Again, these are just criticisms meant to prod your response and beliefs on the matter, a response which I am eager to receive. "Just curious", as they say.

Human "evil" is commonly mistaken for one or more of the following:

- Being an animal without conscious ie. not knowing any better (ignorance)
- Wickedness, selfishness, greed, any of the "sins" (knowing better but choosing to act otherwise for material or emotional gain ie. superfluous or immoral profit or one's "jollies" often regardless of future consequence, closely related to ignorance)
- Mental illness (ignorance)

None of these are in and of themself, evil, per se. You'll know evil when you see it. Or, perhaps not. That is what they call "insidious" in the business.

True evil is rare in this indebted, overpopulated world. Everyone believes themselves to be justified, that benefit will always outweigh risk, that success outweighs sacrifice, in other words "only God can judge me". But when that happens however, hypocrites and the lukewarm are revealed and tunes are changed rather quickly. At such a point however, such changes are typically futile.

How does your OP then? Is it not attempting to facilitate the functions of an absolute proof?

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for? — BitconnectCarlos

Is he bothering or harassing you? You after all went onto his property and were told something he has a right to say. You can continue to attempt to get to know him, perhaps change his mind or you can tell him you appreciate his candor and just not deal with him. Better the devil you know, right? There's no threat like a hidden one, so be grateful it was made known. Might be awkward running into him at market or something. If you want to be cheeky I suppose you could casually bring it up around mixed company and see what the response is on a level playing field. Of course, that's not quite being the bigger person. And if you're a minority could be unwise. Most of the kinds of prejudices or intolerance you're describing were fathered by past actions or experiences brought on by said disliked persons. Someone probably hurt him, or someone close to him, and you simply happen to resemble or "come from" wherever the person or persons who come to mind when he sees you do.

Is this a school or are you his landlord? You can't expel a fellow taxpaying citizen from his private property just because you don't like him. You can expel him for your own private circle of friends and acquaintances, not talk to him or perhaps shun him, but unless you live in a private, gated community that has an HOA or is otherwise privately managed, there are few options along that avenue.

Well, and again it depends on the jurisdiction, but that kind of attitude is not in line with most modern Constitutions. So in a way, you can take solace knowing you're more (insert country name here) than him! Of course, in a democracy people have a right to hold and speak views that are contradictory to national values, even to protest and oppose the government itself- lawfully. So, if he's not breaking any laws or creating any problems, and neither are you, why create one?

To summarize, If he's polite and seems to otherwise be just another law-abiding, mentally-healthy member of your community, there's little to be done.

"Don't become the monster your trying to fight, for if this happens what more does it need do?; When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you." - Nietzsche, paraphrased

Evolution via natural selection is a fiendish engine for spreading unimaginable suffering — David Pearce

Yet it created you, did it not? So, it is therefore now, in addition to this, an incredible engine for spreading unimaginable bliss, if your ideas are to be believed. Some bite the hands that feed them, but are you not attempting to amputate it altogether?

— Outlander

I'm a researcher, not the leader of a millenarian cult with messianic delusions. — David Pearce

Was Jesus not a teacher? A leader or dealer in hope? You tell us here, against all currently possible odds a heaven of infinite currently unimaginable bliss awaits, if we only listen to you, and if not, a Hell also awaits, a lifetime of Darwinian hell? You two could be brothers at this rate!

But reprogramming the biosphere will take centuries. — David Pearce

The similarities continue. What did Jesus say to the first follower when asked what they are to do? : the response was "Change the world"!

After intelligent moral agents phase out the biology of suffering — David Pearce

Sure, and after dark becomes light it's no longer dark. Anything can be changed by this view of "oh after such and such" is applied. We need solutions. Concrete results. At least suggestions. You have a vision, that's great, so does everyone. What will you do in the here and now to see it follows through?

I guess what people will want to say/ask/want to see is.. okay David. Go ahead. Do it with your own kids, do whatever it is as you say. And let us all openly observe them before any talk of ;legislation or anything that involves anybody else.. is involved. Reasonable enough, yes?

Not my business, but you surely have money. So, get a massage for 24 hours straight, longer even. Force yourself to be there in a state of pleasure, platonic if possible but whatever. You'll get bored of it after some time. You've never had a you day? Where you just eat, do what pleasures you, be pleasured, etc, it gets dull after some time. Beyond the natural need for sleep you just want to feel "normal" or "left alone" after some time. This is human nature. Increasing the hedonic "resting level" does not, at least in my theory, eliminate the hedonic treadmill, if one is aware of greater possibility, one is inclined to seek it with body and mind. If one no longer wishes to strive, would you still call this humanity? What differentiates a group of your imagined transhumans with a group of cell phones plugged in and charged to full capacity?

The previous statements make the following assumptions:

A.) That it is in fact an egg (as definition dictates and not simply something that appears as one say a Fabergé egg or unusually shaped hollow rock)

B.) That it is not old, preserved, or otherwise now (or perhaps has been) placed in new and possibly unsuitable conditions for its respective biological hatching process

Z has yet to be explicitly defined though a reader can infer this is the idea that a creature either will or will not be hatched?

1.) Sure. Not all eggs follow the respective biological hatching process for a multitude of reasons.

2.) Considering all variables are in either constant or continual reference to current or potential states of a single object, both actual and hypothetical, I suppose?

3.) Thought, in general? People have written entire books on this so. I want to say, both? I think, lol.

4.) What isn't thought? Mayhaps.. thought is an observation or statement, or series of observations or statements one believes is unheard and is made under the assumption it will not be responded to?

Therefore I think you proposal would only create a division between those in favour, and those against, and if those in favour persisted as if they were starting to proceed into the project without unanimous consent, they might be exterminated as a threat. — Metaphysician Undercover

@David Pearce, also on this sentiment, I was going to suggest if such a- in my view outlandish- reality would ever come to real and actual practice or fruition.. people would want to see the results for themselves first. Not just the first transhumans gleefully or perhaps nonchalantly being happy or blissful or any of the aforementioned in your proposal right away or for a few months or even a few years... but how they truly fare in life and through multiple generations. Perhaps a controlled experiment would be in order. An entire civilization. Somewhere far, far away where they cannot reach the outside non-transhuman world and the outside world cannot reach them. But where we can all monitor them vigorously, both advocate and opponent. Or at least a non-biased person who can offer the moral equivalent (example, a group of volunteers and their kids). Otherwise.. I tend to believe Metaphysician has a quite compelling if not forceful point to be confronted.

You don't let cancer spread, you.. neutralize it. By whatever legal and socially accepted actions of the times and society are, otherwise, if you had the opportunity to stop it but didn't, you are basically at fault for whatever further damage it causes. You were the one who knew better, not the virus. So, by ignoring it and letting it spread, you effectively become it. Tangential aiding and abetting.

Edit: Of course it's not that simple, that's why we have the law, transparency, and public scrutiny. Humans interestingly enough work like T-cells and viruses, a disease can infect a white blood cell or T-cell (or something, I'm not a medical professional) and cause a previously healthy cell that defends the body to either A.) ignore the disease or virus AND/OR B.) attack it's own body and system that supports it. That's what viruses do. The real world comparison would be a stranger telling a person a perfectly-just (which is rare, sure) government is out to get them and he, as opposition, will save them, when in fact he has no such desire. Or that said government has become tyrannical or infiltrated and must be destroyed because ignoring the fact he left where he came from to get there "everything is not quite perfect for you here so there must be an evil conspiracy against you". This is essentially exactly what happens on the cellular level in relation to viruses and blood cells.

Back to the larger world around us, accountability is important, otherwise some degenerate monstrosity could just go up to a law-abiding citizen, accuse him of a crime, or even shoot him, and claim self-defense. So it's tough today. Pick your friends wisely, and make sure they are of similar sentiment. You are who you hang out with.

It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist

Being a rude or terrible person (while following all applicable laws) is not a crime today. Labor is labor. Organs are valuable to someone who needs them, I wouldn't want theirs but to each their own. However a pattern of long term, coordinated efforts to harass, slander, or violate another person's freedoms or rights just short of committing actual crimes however is in many jurisdictions. A threat is not assault, though it could warrant scrutiny of one's mental health and assessment of whether that person is a threat to themselves or others and if certain privileges need to be revoked or other measures deployed to prevent a crime or tragedy against a truly innocent member of society. It's 'intimidation', which is a crime.

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone, but if someone is going on a profanity-ridden tirade amongst mixed company in a public place potentially including children it can be considered 'disturbing the peace'.

Life is disturbing enough. We don't need people who make it even worse. But again, labor, etc.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. — TheHedoMinimalist

Very few things codified into law are truly victimless activities. Being told not to do something, being stopped, and perhaps receiving a nominal fine is a world of difference from being incarcerated against one's will.

I don’t understand how smoking weed could be considered a victimless crime if the activity could cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist

It makes stupid, lazy, and/or forgetful people even more so. Don't do that to your fellow man. Sure most can handle it, but if you let some people do it you have to let everyone do it. Fast food orders get mixed up, traffic lights and signs get ignored, appointments and important obligations are put off if not missed altogether, entire fridges and pantries become depleted, these actions alone are permissible of course they can lead to surprisingly disproportionate conflict, injuries, and suffering. It's the net impact on society after adding up all these little things that by themselves are basically nothing.

Kind of like how a 1 cent global tax on everyone once a month for a year will create a surplus fund of a billion dollars.

Yet perhaps we can use biotech and IT to build a world fit for euphoric realism – a world where reality itself seems conspiring to help you. — David Pearce

Does the transhumanist vision ultimately lead to something of a morgue where bodies are stored side-by-side and atop on another in a state of unconsciousness (or even cold storage) offering an identical experience to reality, say a new world to explore the size of ten Earths with geographic features only found on other planets along with personal indestructibility? Would we even require bodies anymore, perhaps it will become a requirement to give one's up?

Wouldn't shrinking people (an old myth that perhaps may be a crypto-technological metaphor) make more sense for human well being? An entire metropolitan city of 1 million people - each and every denizen - would now be able to live in their own private three-story mansion with 20 bedrooms, an Olympic sized swimming pool, and their own private petting zoo and race track (or something) in no more combined space and area than an average strip mall. Fancy that eh?

I wasn't saying everyone should own the same things. Capitalism causes a lot of misery and I see that everyday — Gregory

Are you not forgetting the first noble truth of the Buddha (or any religion that pays any attention to anything and wants to gain members aka "exists"): Existence is suffering. The cause of suffering is desire.

I got it! you answer the question in your own mind by simply asking it. So I ask you again (or for the first time, sorry I can't quite recall..) .. is it?!

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

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

Care to explain? Compassion for whom? — Pinprick

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

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

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

Would we suddenly become significant if we spread to other planets throughout several galaxies? — Pinprick

NO. We are confined to this doomed planet out of compassion. The only place left where the existence of human life and the suffering we deal and tolerate is tolerable due to the fact God doesn't pay much attention here. Most of these will not like it if that was different. Well, not for long anyway. Few would remain if so. We wouldn't survive for long anywhere else. "Earth", as those before us who actually valued wisdom as currency, so desperately and idealistically wished to call this place.. is the sole cosmic "blind spot" in the Universe. The veil is wearing thin I fear. Though.. evil people create the equivalent of ozone when killed. Do the math.

Yeah that's atheism for ya. How any decent people who are that manage to keep their sanity is beyond me.

P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed. — James Riley

Actually the saying goes, it's better for 10 criminals to go free before an innocent person is harmed. But.. why are the criminals criminals. Because they break the law and harm innocent people. Lol. See they know people are stupid and they prove it by saying these things that people repeat. Lol. It's really not funny, I mean it is and will be, later.. but now is not later. I think anyway.

Very much so yes. Tiny people want tiny things, while greater persons wish for far greater things. Mind over matter. What is small and what is great does not always correlate in physical size or appeal for attention and admiration, especially these days.