sserafim
brighter than the sun, that’s just me
- Sep 13, 2023
- 9,015
As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.
Bitcoin Address (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJt
Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9
Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVS
I think that humans have transcended nature. Humans have created so many artificial structures. We live in concrete jungles, etc. I don't consider humans to be part of nature. Humans are not essential to the planet. Humans aren't a central part of the food chain like "real" animals are, the food chain doesn't need us, even though we're at the top. There are plenty of other apex predators to choose from. Our presence or absence on this planet makes no difference. Humans are inherently abnormal and different from other species, only humanity has consciousness and is "intelligent"Well meaning is a human idea, its something we've generated entirely. Without humans things like meaning and purpose and happiness and sadness and sorrow and art and even value - these things are meaningless without us. Things are given meaning by us. We are the barometers of what is meaning in a meaningless universe. The universe doesn't ascribe meaning to things or life vs non-life. These are temporary illusions, constructs created by the human mind.
If we are barometers of meaning, then the universe is not meaningless because we are part of the universe. Whether there is higher meaning than that, I do not know. So when you talk about destroying the planet, you're using a human value system. We're the only ones capable recognizing that as a bad thing. The universe in and of itself doesn't care if there is life on this planet or not.
Importance is an arbitrary human construct created to aid our instinct for survival. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Life has the meaning that you assign to it, or that you find in it.
For example, it may be that no intelligence is truly important on a cosmic scale, or that genetic intelligence is, brain intelligence is, AND machine intelligence is. Or it may be that machine intelligence and life merge. Since machine intelligence depends upon biological intelligence to kickstart it, biological intelligence is also significant. Importance is an evaluator-specific term.
Humans are part of nature. Yes, we're trashing the environment more than I like at present, but we are aware of it and we are working on it. And for comparison, photosynthetic microbes put a thousand times as much oxygen in the atmosphere as we have put in carbon dioxide, and oxygen is a lot more reactive. Furthermore, as the sun gets hotter, it will cook the earth, and humanity is the only species that can save it. We need to move the earth 10 meters further from the sun every year to make up for the sun getting brighter. What other species is going to move the earth?
Moving the earth could be done with a few asteroids of the size that wiped out the dinosaurs. Do you try to use one a little bit bigger, or a few dozen quite a bit smaller? It is not an easy choice from what I can see at this point.
At least as far as we know of on planet earth…I think that humans have transcended nature. Humans have created so many artificial structures. We live in concrete jungles, etc. I don't consider humans to be part of nature. Humans are inherently abnormal and different from other species, only humanity has consciousness and is "intelligent"
Also on this vein, what makes AI "artificial?" It's not organic?At least as far as we know of on planet earth…
Also depends on your definition of intelligence…
Nature encompasses all that exists: blackholes, stars, dark matter, flowers, quasars, ect. There is no "un-nature."
This is just off the top of my head, but I can definitely get back to this with a more thoughtful, succinct response
I guess artificial because it's not biological/organic. Life is carbon-based and AI is machine-basedAlso on this vein, what makes AI "artificial?" It's not organic?
I guess artificial because it's not biological/organic.
I'll get back to this one along with the others.I guess artificial because it's not biological/organic. Life is carbon-based and AI is machine-based
We're just playing silly games anyway. Human society is fabricated nonsense, that artificially gives people purpose and meaning. It's all a bit of a hoax! A clever scam that we're indoctrinated into from cradle to grave…
I think it's horrible that animals have to suffer. I do agree with that. But value is a total human concept. The universe does not care if there is life on this planet, and does not describe value to life versus non-life.Not just humans.
But it depends how you look at it. If you can accept/ignore beings suffering then maybe you can see some appeal in existence. After all even animals hurt one another.
The issue I find with humans when they discuss positive aspects of life is how they are blind to animal suffering for example. Some religious people are even oblivious to the fact that animals have a nervous system and feel pain.
You might be right even tho for a long time I believed that we have needs based on what something greater wants of us.I think it's horrible that animals have to suffer. I do agree with that. But value is a total human concept. The universe does not care if there is life on this planet, and does not describe value to life versus non-life.
I don't know if there's freewill or not. I think the jury is still out. I haven't really looked into this lately. I think there's room for it because we still don't have a firm grasp on consciousness but I mean I wouldn't say a bacterium has freewill. Its all very rigid mechanical processes. Us, I feel like we do. If we do, where's the line? Where is the complexity of self reflection that allows for freewill and what is the mechanism? Maybe there is something quantum mechanical going on. I don't know.You might be right even tho for a long time I believed that we have needs based on what something greater wants of us.
I feel all of my needs are imposed upon me and I have no control over them even when it seems I do. I feel like a puppet with no free will.
Humans are the only species capable in the future of moving the earth away from the sun as it expands, and it is actually quite possible. I actually explained this in one of the posts above. One of my issues with the alien concept is that people basically turn to that idea as a replacement for God and angels that one day there is going to be this cosmic savior.Yes, I believe so. Give the rest of the animals and plants that inhabit this earth a chance to recover. I don't think we're altruistic enough to slow down our destruction of this planet. I imagine we may well wipe ourselves out before the sun explodes and kills everything but I think it would be nice if the billions of other organisms on this planet had a restbite from us before that happens. I wonder which animal would become the most dominant next.
Plus, I'm probably more in favour of nature than AI. Without us, so long as AI hasn't been created to an indepenent level, that would die too. (Although- would it ever have been alive?) Somehow, if AI is created in our image and- if they have no need for nature, I could see them continuing in the same pillage and plunder fashion we have with regards to other species. I think they need a good long break from creatures that can enslave and butcher them en masse. Good riddance to the lot of us!
Maybe it would be good if some good alien spiecies one day came along though and collected all of humankinds greatest achievements and displayed them in some museum. Isn't it weird to think one day- no one will be around to hear your favourite song? Any form of it will have been melted by the sun.
Humans are the only species capable in the future of moving the earth away from the sun as it expands, and it is actually quite possible. I actually explained this in one of the posts above. One of my issues with the alien concept is that people basically turn to that idea as a replacement for God and angels that one day there is going to be this cosmic savior.
Yes, humans are currently trashing the planet far more than I would like. Also, if humans eventually move off world, which I strongly believe they will, they are likely going to take other species with them just like they did when they moved to the New World. Possibly DNA, embryos and even living specimen.
Humans are also the only species capable of resurrecting extinct species.
Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature, destroyed the planet and its natural resources, and caused unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negativesSeriously? That's impressive- if we could really move the earth. Wouldn't we still be screwed though- without a sun? If this one eventually explodes? I can't see us surviving that long though. I doubt we'll evolve quickly enough or, learn to live on other planets fast enough in a race with climate change.
I didn't really mean an alien race would save us. I'd rather hope they had the sense to leave us to destroy ourselves. I meant more- humanities achievements- our music, greatest inventions etc. It would be nice to think of them being recorded somehow. Not actual humans though. Well- that's my preference anyhow. We have some good attributes to us but overall, I think we are an incredibly destructive and harmful species.
As for living off planet- I really hope not. But yes- I could well see it... We find some pure unsuspecting planet to settle on. Move there with a sci-fi Noah's Ark with all our favourite animals from earth. Then, someone will probably discover dead native species to that planet that were destroyed by the animals we brought with us or, the diseases they carried. (Look at what happened when we introduced grey squirrels to the UK- they killed off the native species.) If a planet has conditions suitable to sustain life like this planet- why wouldn't they have some sort of life already there? Do you think entrepeneurs will give a shit about that life if they can make money?
How do you know humans are the only species that can resurrect extinct species? Are you sure there are no superior beings in this universe? And actually- can we? How come Jurassic Park isn't real yet then?
True- animals have gone extinct en masse in the past. That doesn't exactly deminish all the damage we've done though. But hey- I hope you're right. One of my very greatest heroes- Sir David Attenborough still has faith that the human race can turn things around. I hope you're right. I'm glad I won't have to witness it if we fail though.
So for Jurassic Park - it's limited because DNA breaks down and we need a solid sample. It's more with closer species in time like mammoths.Seriously? That's impressive- if we could really move the earth. Wouldn't we still be screwed though- without a sun? If this one eventually explodes? I can't see us surviving that long though. I doubt we'll evolve quickly enough or, learn to live on other planets fast enough in a race with climate change.
I didn't really mean an alien race would save us. I'd rather hope they had the sense to leave us to destroy ourselves. I meant more- humanities achievements- our music, greatest inventions etc. It would be nice to think of them being recorded somehow. Not actual humans though. Well- that's my preference anyhow. We have some good attributes to us but overall, I think we are an incredibly destructive and harmful species.
As for living off planet- I really hope not. But yes- I could well see it... We find some pure unsuspecting planet to settle on. Move there with a sci-fi Noah's Ark with all our favourite animals from earth. Then, someone will probably discover dead native species to that planet that were destroyed by the animals we brought with us or, the diseases they carried. (Look at what happened when we introduced grey squirrels to the UK- they killed off the native species.) If a planet has conditions suitable to sustain life like this planet- why wouldn't they have some sort of life already there? Do you think entrepeneurs will give a shit about that life if they can make money?
How do you know humans are the only species that can resurrect extinct species? Are you sure there are no superior beings in this universe? And actually- can we? How come Jurassic Park isn't real yet then?
True- animals have gone extinct en masse in the past. That doesn't exactly deminish all the damage we've done though. But hey- I hope you're right. One of my very greatest heroes- Sir David Attenborough still has faith that the human race can turn things around. I hope you're right. I'm glad I won't have to witness it if we fail though.
Morality is subjective, not objective…Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature, destroyed the planet and its natural resources, and caused unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negatives
Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature and causes unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negatives
So for Jurassic Park - it's limited because DNA breaks down and we need a solid sample. It's more with closer species in time like mammoths.
We will terraform insides of structures that we construct from asteroid rubble. Ceres alone could produce usable surface area roughly 2000 times bigger than Earth's surface, assuming rubble thickness that provides the same shielding as Earth's atmosphere.
I suspect that individual few-kilometer cylinders will be much more practical than Dyson spheres, and could have an aggregate inner surface area millions of times that of the Earth's surface. Roughly 5 m of asteroid rubble would provide comparable shielding to Earth's atmosphere/magnetic field, and it is almost within current technology to start building smaller ones.
For example, oxygen is actually one of the greatest oxidizers and bacteria have filled the environment with oxygen…
It's not to say that humans have not been destructive
Morality is subjective, not objective…
Also, we would've entered an Ice Age already, if it was not because of human farming, and clearing of forests. Again, I'm not saying the climate change is not real and I'm not saying that we're not changing the planet currently but I'm just saying as a couple examples
From a multi-universe perspective, is it really depressing? Or is it just events unfolding, things happening? The chaos of the universe. Broader perspective. My answer would be - everything that can exist always exists, so there really is no time, and in the grand scheme of things everything happens. But from a local perspective, it can be depressing when something bad happens in the thread of reality that your current consciousness is experiencing.Yeah, I do feel this too. I feel guilty for my hand in it. Each thing I chuck into landfill. It's depressing when I think of how much rubbish I've generated in my life. All the harm it would have done. All the animals that have died for me. It's horrible. You could go mad with guilt but- you can't. You have to keep living this dumb arse life because it will upset people if you don't. So, you just ignore it and carry on as best you can, making tiny amounts of effort- go vegetarian, try and recycle all you can. But in the words of the late great Sean Lock, it feels like 'bringing a dustpan and brush to tidy up the aftermath of an earthquake!'
I guess though- ultimately, I do forgive myself. I didn't choose to be born into this but- now, I'm expected to live here and get by as best I can. So- I will, until I don't have to anymore. My greatest contribution is not having children. My dumb genes aren't clever enough to solve the climate change crisis. I would have likely just brought another struggling artist into this world. Lol.
Sometimes I think- if there is a red button to launch the nuclear bombs, it will likely be an environmentalist that has the best motive to press it. Look at how Chernobyl bounced back. Kind of depressing really- a nuclear fallout area is probably the safest place an animal could be probably!
Sounds very clever and impressive. I'm still glad neither I or my unborn offspring will be around to see it though. I'm happy to let my genes die with me. I probably don't care much what the rest of humanity gets up to. I just hope it doesn't continue in the same explotative way it always has done- although, I suspect it will.
What metric of measure are you using to say it's a net negative? Measurement is arbitrary…Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature, destroyed the planet and its natural resources, and caused unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negatives
Humans are genociding animals but also, everyday regardless of human behavior, many species go extinct. It's up to humanity to catalogue them.Animals are going extinct because of humans. Every day, species go extinct. Humanity, in my opinion, is a net negative for the planet. All humans do is destroy and engage in destruction. We've caused so many animals to go extinct due to our selfishness and greed. We've wreaked havoc on nature, destroyed the planet and its natural resources, and caused unprecedented climate change. The right, morally correct thing for the planet would be for humanity to go voluntarily extinct. Humans have brought no positives, only negatives
From a multi-universe perspective, is it really depressing? Or is it just events unfolding, things happening? The chaos of the universe. Broader perspective. My answer would be - everything that can exist always exists, so there really is no time, and in the grand scheme of things everything happens. But from a local perspective, it can be depressing when something bad happens in the thread of reality that your current consciousness is experiencing.
Ultimately humanity will merge with ageless machines.
Nuclear winter would last from a few years to a decade.
What metric of measure are you using to say it's a net negative? Measurement is arbitrary…
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.I suppose I don't like this broader perspective because it negates responsibility. Muderers are very often found culpable because they know what they're doing is causing suffering and denying autonomy to another sentient being. An asteroid heading straight for the earth isn't doing it deliberately. We know what damage we do but, we do it anyway because it's more convenient and it benefits us. The point is- we have consciousness to realise this. Most other events and creatures probably don't so much.
In the grand scheme of things- who knows what matters? No one can decide on which rule book we should be following. Do we know for absolute fact there's no meaning to life? No consequences to the decisions we make? I don't know.
By extension though- if nothing matters in the grand scheme of things, why would it matter if we go instinct or not?
Yeah, I believe that humans are inherently selfish and evil.Do you believe that humans are inherently evil? My understanding from cutting edge neuroscience and psychology is that we have simply not outgrown our evolutionary programming yet and the hope is that through technology we will one day be able to
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.
Again, on a *local scale* it is depressing. But I'm saying, when viewed from the omniverse, everything that can exist, does exist. If we go extinct here. There are an infinite number of universes where this will still be happening. Does it matter? Again, value is a human idea that we created. Same with meaning and morality. It's something that we have generated entirely. Morality is subjective. Does life have value? It's an idea. I think it does. Absolutely. But I recognize that, that is from my human perspective. Humans are incapable of objectivity. Journalism is a product of the human mind, too.
Why do you think so?
Why do you think they inherently evil instead of being programmed with outdated anarchistic survival drives that clash with the modern world and haven't caught up yet?Yeah, I believe that humans are inherently selfish and evil.
Why do you think so?
Do you believe that humans are inherently evil? My understanding from cutting edge neuroscience and psychology is that we have simply not outgrown our evolutionary programming yet and the hope is that through technology we will one day be able to
It doesn't. Value is a human concept. It's an idea. Created out of our need for survival. Value is not objective. The planet and universe don't care if there is life. They don't ascribe value to life vs non-life. So when you talk about destroying the planet and environment, you're using a human value system. In the absolute, necessity doesn't exist.