I already said this in response to one person on the thread but...
#4 is the only one on this list that, in my opinion, we must realize as a species. The end of the Earth is unavoidable. Even if we avoid every anthropogenic cause of it, there are still countless other ways we could face "the end" - imagine an asteroid like what killed the dinosaurs. Perhaps it wouldn't cause us to go extinct but we'd lose a lot of people, a lot of civilization, and a lot of our advancement. And even if we avoided that, the dying sun will inevitably consume the planet (and yes, I am being implausibly optimistic with my assumptions that mankind will make it long enough to see that) so the only solution is to abandon our ancestral home and make a new one, somewhere.
If mankind has any hope of assured, permanent survival, the Earth will have to become the childhood home of our species. Otherwise it will be our grave.
I really liked this article, and enjoy reading the discussion below. I don't have much to add myself other than that I was just thinking about how it'd be awesome if there was a tag #hopeformankind or something like that. I like things that give me hope, whether it be a picture of someone's adorable kid, or things like this.
#2 is the only one of those that immediately strikes me as truly utopian.
#1 is good for me, a lower middle class WASP living in the States, but not particularly good for the majority of the world's population. #3 is unrealistic and has inevitable overtones of religion and determinism. #4 is ultimately at least partially a failure -- an admission of defeat on planet Earth. #5 is awful. #6 is out if you subscribe to the "no pleasure without pain" PoV, the highest highs/lowest lows idea. And #7 is Buddhism.
>#4 is ultimately at least partially a failure -- an admission of defeat on planet Earth.
You assume that we give up on Earth if we ever leave for another planet? I see that as one of the biggest successes of our species should we accomplish it. Becoming an interstellar species would be a huge achievement. But I don't see why the critics of this always have to make it one or the other... why can't we take care of Earth AND travel the stars? Traveling the stars and establishing off world colonies could be the very human event that brings us all together and makes things better down here. Just look at the moon landings. Imagine a group of people from different nations starting a colony on Mars, or on a planet orbiting another star. That could be the inspirational and binding event for our species that would lead to many other better changes even down here on Earth.
Perhaps you've already seen this, but it's The Sagan Series, a fan made series of videos pieced together by a fan. He explains a similar sentiment far better than I ever could.
- You assume that we give up on Earth if we ever leave for another planet? I see that as one of the biggest successes of our species should we accomplish it. Becoming an interstellar species would be a huge achievement.
So, yes, you can feel free to be idealistic about the how -- putting someone on the Moon is the ultimate ideal fulfilled -- but you can't be idealistic about the why. The way we're going now, space travel will be a necessity, not a luxury. That's why I see it as a failure.
- why can't we take care of Earth AND travel the stars?
Because we're not doing the former, so we'll have to do the latter.
I half agree with your assessments.
#1: Agreed, depending on who you ask Status Quo is quite dystopian. Now, on the other hand, if we were able to get everyone in the world with a quality of life equal to what you and I have but keep it sustainable and not wholly destroy the ecosystem or civilization, that would be a good place to be, I think. But neutering our advancement makes me very sad, and I'd like our species to live to a fuller potential.
#2: Yes, it seems solid and enviable, although as a city person I'd like to see a balance between organic and inorganic spaces (I can't really say natural vs. man-made because in the explanations posited in the article, it would all be man-made and supported).
#3: Hit or miss. If we can make truly friendly AI then it might actually be a wonderful situation. Friendly means not merely "not hurting us" but also, I'd say, it must also respect us and our freedoms. Part of that is our duty to respect the AI, as well. A mutually beneficial existence with a benevolent and powerful AI could bring incredible peace allowing for the expansion of human intelligence and creativity.
#4: Consider the long game on this one- someday, you and I both know that it is inevitable the Earth will be consumed by our dying Sun. It may not be for billions of years, but the only way to ensure the everlasting prosperity - nay, survival - of humans is to leave the Earth. It doesn't even need to be the sun - what if the Earth is hit by a giant asteroid, like what killed the dinosaurs? There are so many ways the earth could end that aren't anthropogenic (ignoring the even greater number of ways which are) that it'd be foolhardy of us not to have a contingency. 4 is, in my opinion, the only possibility on this list we must realize.
#5: Could you explain why you find it awful? I find it philosophically neutral, but I do find myself fascinated by the idea of all humanity coming together to share in one giant mind. Imagine every person as a neuron in a single brain, all working together for something greater than any one of us. This could go both ways, I don't find it inherently bad.
#6: Perhaps consider that that point of view (no pleasure without pain) is an adaptation to our environment. We've been forced to suffer a great deal as a species, and therefore to cope with it, we've had to learn to deal with pain by considering it a vital part of our experience. If we were in a situation where there was no pain, and no suffering, then there would be no need for such an adaptation.
#7: The idea presented in the article is really more of a catch-all but there are certainly elements of their thoughts that are Buddhist sounding. As such I really have no particular statements on it - it's too broad. Curious but too airy.
- #2: Yes, it seems solid and enviable, although as a city person I'd like to see a balance between organic and inorganic spaces (I can't really say natural vs. man-made because in the explanations posited in the article, it would all be man-made and supported).
Think Asimov's Aurora.
- #5: Could you explain why you find it awful? I find it philosophically neutral, but I do find myself fascinated by the idea of all humanity coming together to share in one giant mind. Imagine every person as a neuron in a single brain, all working together for something greater than any one of us. This could go both ways, I don't find it inherently bad.
Because at heart, I guess I really am American. I'll keep my mind to myself, thanks. That may make me selfish, but if I'm selfish at least I know I'm still independent. Similar to Descartes' Meditations. I'll take the bad if it means I can still feel, etc.
We dream of #2. Maybe we can get to #1 if we work really really hard. #6:
- Given that we live in a hostile universe with no meaning other than what we ascribe to it, who's to say that entering into a permanent state of bliss is somehow wrong or immoral?
I don't under any circumstances buy the "inherently hostile universe" argument. The universe is the most neutral piece on the game board. If anything, humanity is the inherently hostile blitzkrieg.
(I don't believe that the universe has no meaning, either. I just hate that sentence you quoted, I guess!)
I think #5 seems likely. More and more we are heading in this direction anyways as people are less "in the moment" and are more dialed in to technology or even their own internal dialog.