The thing is, we assuredly have a lot of great filters between who we are now and Q-continuum or whatever enlightened existence we imagine as a goal.
We obviously have some tragedy of the commons problems, and fail to regard everyone in our civilizations of hundred of millions as fellow and equal human beings. Either we figure out how to overcome these sociological problems, or we die out. Depletion of resources, warfare-driven holocaust and contamination by pollution are some of the less exciting filters, but they’re recurring.
I suppose if we try some geoengineering and it leads to disaster then we can say we killed ourselves by big science experiment. Though black holes or strangelets would have been cooler.
The techno-gazillionaires who are fused with AI can live for eternity without the rest of us while they celebrate the success of their enshittified libertarian accelerationist utopia.
Um…sorta? A rudimentary AI simulation of them will live until power ceases, but that will be a separate entity than the flesh and blood gazillionaire who commissioned the AI to represent him.
On the other hand, it does intersect with the transporter paradox: When you beam down to the planet, is it the same you or just a clone with all your memories that is convincingly you even to itself? And if that’s the case, when you go into delta sleep and then wake again (at which point all your cognizant functions reboot) is the waking you the same person as the you who went to bed the night before?
If there’s any possibility that it isn’t then the gazillionaire AI zombie may be good enough.
Pay walled, but I gotta say, I’ve not seen any reason why we deserve to go on. We are a parasite on the planet destroying everything as we go until there is nothing left.
What swnt meant were the precambrian cyanobacteria in the ancient anaerobic world that started producing oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. Oxygen was toxic to all then existing organisms. The cyanobacteria were so successful that they managed to poison the whole world, which later lead to the evolution of oxygen breathing organisms like us, but at that time, it was a global catastrophe.
Personally, I think humans are the most interesting and important thing going on in this solar system, let alone planet. Actually, I think it would be a pretty tough argument to suggest anything else…
Yup, really doing a bang up job with that importance. Really look after each other, are full of compassion and want the best for all living creatures. Really a gift to this university…
100% sincere. I guess it’s trendy to say things like “humans are parasites”, certainly the concept of “humans as a virus” has been explored in fiction often enough. But if we’re being perfectly honest, humans are simply amazing and what we’ve already achieved is monumental and incredibly meaningful. In fact, it’s the very definition of meaningful, because it’s intelligent life that creates “meaning” in the first place.
Humans definitely rely on parasitism to survive, especially on each other, but we’re susceptible to intra-species parasitism because our organizational instincts lead us to be credulous. I think if we didn’t think of it as that, and embraced a cooperative outlook (that restricted competition or antagonism) then we’d have fewer people wanting to engage in parasitism.
But I’m guessing. Some people want to compete for competition’s sake, and some people do so just because kinder survival strategies aren’t available or working.
That said, whether we go extinct in the next few centuries (a significant risk right now) or we are able to organize enough to quell the climate crisis and clean up the plastic crisis, or just are reduced down to thousands, and stay that way though a few ice ages, is beyond our individual power to influence at this point. Our elites who own all the wealth can’t even think past next year, which might be an indictment regarding the deep-time survivability of our species.
I’ve learned to disinvest. I will not be here to notice what happens, and have only been disappointed in how humanity treats each other.
I would be more apt to agree with you if humans weren’t actively killing the planet, have killed so many plant and animal species to extinction, and are constantly at war with each other. Sure, we created the internet, can travel in space, can alter genetic code. But what does it matter when we destroy the earth, and the next planet, and the next planet.
But do you know what’s killed even more species than humans have?
A supervolcano.
And what killed even more species than that?
An asteroid.
And honestly, the world has very little to show for it.
Mass extensions happen, they’ve happened many times and they will continue to happen for as long as there’s still life in this planet. So sure, humans are causing a mass extinction right now, but (A) that’s not unique or unusual for the planet, and (B) we’re aware of it, and we’re trying to change (even if we’re mostly failing). The asteroid never even tried to turn around, so in that sense we’re already proving friendlier than nature.
And on the topic of asteroids, here’s another thought… NASA’s DART mission has made meaningful progress in our efforts to prevent the next mass extinction by redirecting an asteroid. What that proves is that we are capable of doing positive things for the planet. Our self awareness gives us incentive to protect the planet and ourselves. I would think that the combination of our incentive and proven ability likely means that the planet is better off with us than without us, but in the end we’ll just have to wait and see.
Sorry, not my intention to post a paywall link, I use a browser that deletes all cookies every time I close it so these sites usually work for me with a “you have X free articles left” banner at the bottom.
The funny thing is its what all life does, but it means despite our cognitive abilities we are really proving we are nothing more than any other animal. All we would have needed to do is act on what we know rather than what we want and we would not be here.
While that may be true, I’ve not seen a bunch of orangutans bulldoze entire cities and push their inhabitants populations to extinction. We’re not comparable with any animal due to the sheer destructive power we have.
yes but not while splitting the atom. I mean sure we can just not utilize our cognitive ability to understand the universe and live in harmony that way but boy it would have been grand to utilize our most precious of species abilities in a responsible way.
indigenous people have destroyed plenty of ecosystems. much of the mega fauna was hunted to extinction by them. humans have always been destructive of their environment to some degree, becuse we’re incredibly good and exploiting the environment. the difference is now we can destroy shit on a much bigger scale…
I can understand your point given the state of things, but I think the point always deserves a caveat, which is that the parasitism and destruction isn’t equally distributed. The majority of people on earth consume at a relatively sustainable rate, and there’s no reason they deserve to be wiped out. Unfortunately they’re increasingly forced to rely on the destructive minority for their basic needs.
Add comment