Replacement for Oil or Space Travel

[Edric O]

Clarify the basis for your arguments, Dante. You seem to be arguing from a nihilist point of view ("human life and life in general don't really matter, so we have no reason to care about these things or the fate of humanity"). But then you go around and make statements like "", which contradict your own ideas. If life is worthless, then lifeless rocks are obviously even more worthless, so you have no reason to care about what humans might do to them, either. In fact, as I pointed out some years ago, one of the biggest inconsistencies in your philosophy of life is that, if everything is ultimately worthless, then you have no grounds on which to choose one action over another. When a person makes a choice, he or she makes a value judgement (i.e. "I choose to eat apple pie because this action is better - it has greater value - than eating pizza"). If both apple pie and pizza are worthless, how do you choose between them? You can't simply choose the one you like best, because that would be a value judgement. You would be saying that things have value if they make you feel good. In other words, you would be adopting hedonism.

To use a more serious example: How do you choose between living and commiting suicide? You say you have no reason to commit suicide. But you have no reason to live either. So a choice cannot be made. The same applies to every other choice in life. If you applied your principles consistently, you would not be able to make any choices or take any actions whatsoever.

[Dante]

Reason to colonize other planets - survival

Reason not to - none. Unless you consider the fact some people deem it unacceptable a valid reason.

Situation justified in my opinion.

Some things are more important than the survival of a destructive species.

No. The bear would still do what is needed for its survival, even if it considered itself inferior to the wolf.

If it considered itself inferior to the wolf, it would leave it well alone, and try to survive elsewhere.

Why not? Why sacrifice ourselves to preserve those we would destroy? From their viewpoint, they will be destroying us. And on what basis is it unacceptable causing a species to become extinct?

I can't think of a basis where it is acceptable to cause extinction, with the possible exception of pure profit. And I didn't say sacrifice ourselves, I said don't sacrifice others.

In your mind we humans are the destructive force because "we destroy without creating", upsetting the balance, while other organisms do not. You fail to see though that any organism would do what we are doing in order to ensure its survival. This is the way it is in nature.

Nature stops when it has had enough. Humans do not, they just keep taking until there is nothing left.

We won't be replacing oil with oil. Here is an example of what I mean: we can power up our cars with sun. We can replace plastic with another material. etc until we don't need oil anymore.

And what will make the solar panels? The tyres, the seats, the bumpers, the radio, what will they be made of? Wood and wool? Is that what you plan to replace plastics with?

Clarify the basis for your arguments, Dante. You seem to be arguing from a nihilist point of view ("human life and life in general don't really matter, so we have no reason to care about these things or the fate of humanity"). But then you go around and make statements like "", which contradict your own ideas. If life is worthless, then lifeless rocks are obviously even more worthless, so you have no reason to care about what humans might do to them, either.

It's not that life doesn't matter, in fact the opposite is true. Humans destroy life. This single species is responsible for thousands of extinctions. Thus in order to preserve life, it makes sense that the single destructive species be removed. In the absence of that, it is clear that humanity is currently on a 'winning streak' compared to any other species. Therefore attempts or arguments to preserve humanity will have less merit or import than those attempting to preserve something (anything) else. In other words, life matters, but some life matters more than others. Were there only five humans left in a world full of giant insects then the argument would also apply to their preservation.

On a related note, this is one of the primary reasons that I don't like human rights groups. They whine on and on and on about human rights abuses, the numbers being killed, maimed, imprisoned, blah blah blah, when there are billions of us around. And they think that their mission is somehow more important than a smaller (and certainly less well funded) group attempting to preserve a species that might only have a few tens of individuals left. One of Amnesty International's latest slogans is "Save the human," obviously modelled on "Save the whale" or "Save the Panda." I find that offensive. Pandas and whales, for example, are under quite serious threat. Humans, on the other hand, have a population surplus. I mean really, prioritize people!

In fact, as I pointed out some years ago, one of the biggest inconsistencies in your philosophy of life is that, if everything is ultimately worthless, then you have no grounds on which to choose one action over another. When a person makes a choice, he or she makes a value judgement (i.e. "I choose to eat apple pie because this action is better - it has greater value - than eating pizza"). If both apple pie and pizza are worthless, how do you choose between them? You can't simply choose the one you like best, because that would be a value judgement. You would be saying that things have value if they make you feel good. In other words, you would be adopting hedonism.

'Things,' for want of a better term, are valued differently by different people. From this two conclusions are possible. That there is a given value and that those who do not believe it are wrong, or that there is no given value and all that matters is perception. I favour the latter. Everything may be worthless, but it is percieved to have worth, depending on which value judgement a person choses to use, and how they use it. Argument, therefore, is not a method of convincing someone of what is right, but convincing someone to agree with you. And decision is not knowing what is more important, but believing what is more important.

To use a more serious example: How do you choose between living and commiting suicide? You say you have no reason to commit suicide. But you have no reason to live either. So a choice cannot be made. The same applies to every other choice in life. If you applied your principles consistently, you would not be able to make any choices or take any actions whatsoever.

"Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they are inconvenient."

- Laine Hanson (played by Joan Allen) "The Contender"

And I don't stick to my principles when they are inconvenient. Not often, anyway. So it could be argued that I have none. Or on the other hand, since my stance is that there is percieved worth if not real worth, it could be that I make my own value judgements on that basis.

Commiting suicide requires an action. Remaining alive would be inaction. Therefore when unable to make a choice (as in the given example where there are no reasons for or against suicide), the only available choice is inaction, which leads to continued life. A choice has not been made, but an outcome has been reached all the same. The same applies to all other decisions.

I do have a habit of not following an argument through from basis to conclusion; I tend to assume that others will just see the gaps and know what I used to cross them. This isn't often the case so yes, I do need to go back and clarify things sometimes.

[Dude_Doc]

Give me a reason to hasten it.

You will automatically hasten it if you don't try to survive, just like the human species. If we do not spread to other worlds, then we will simply die out. To survive you must expand.

No, it doesn't. All things end, and an educated race would recognise that its time had come.

And how does that species recognize that time? When huge alien ships are hovering over our cities? An educated species would look for other ways to survive. I wouldn't believe it one day that a we would not find another way to survive if we were faced with extinction - no matter what the threat.

Wht 'ours'? Who is 'we'? What if the French discovered it, would that mean that France can claim ownership of an entire planet? Or if Britain did, would we then own the whole thing, as we did Australia?

I don't know how things will look like when we come to that stage, as I said, it is up to humanity to realize that humans are humans, not different spicies living on the same planet. I would much rather see that colonized planets would be "owned" by the whole of humanity, and not a country or a corporation. But to do that, we need a change in the world systems we have - or, yes, that might be the situation.

What country has jurisdriction over the moon?

And what is the definition of 'intelligent life'? Why should it be any different from non-sentient life?

The definition of intelligent life is that one that can communicate with each other, one that knows that it exists. If you mean we would have the right to kill and plunder all kinds of "alien animal" life on other planets as soon as we get there, I would say that is not the case. It is not only in our being to explore, it is in us to take care of those environments and life-forms should we decide to colonize such a planet.

Intelligence doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want to any lifeform that do not have intelligence.

An alien planet will have either no ecosystem, or a completely different one.

Thus the reason for colonization. If that planet has a completely different ecosystem, then we would probably leave it alone, I don't really know. But of all the stars in the universe, some of them just have to have other habitable or semi-habitable planets. The hard part is to get there.

Either way, our interference could destroy a habitat that we know nothing about.

That we don't know anything about now. It seems to me like you're thinking that when we find, and get to that planet, we will still be at our current technological capabilities, which I doubt.

But you are also thinking in a dystophical way. Why is it so impossible to just live side-by-side on that planet?

Furthermore, to just waltz onto a different planet and claim it displays a racial arrogence bordering on violence.

Yes - if that planet has it's own inhabitants. As I said before, it all depends on how humanity will be when we get there. If we seek minerals and money, then sure, it would probably be one of the biggest massacres humanity will commit. But you must also take in account that other alien civilizations most probably also colonize space, when they get to that stage. If so, it would mean that the whole universe is filled with "racial arrogant and violent aliens", which would make the whole question of existance even more meaningless.

Society can go rot. If bacterial life stands in the way of taking over a planet, than that planet is off limits. Causing a species, any species, to become extinct is unacceptable.

That is just like saying we shouldn't research a cure to cancer - since that is an organism, and we shouldn't mess with it. Or HIV/AIDS, or any other deceases.

[TheRedDuke05]

I say if we do see aliens, try to make some sort of peace gesture, or at least a non-agression act at first. If that doesn't work, then my idea of a centralized army would probably pay off.

[Acriku]

As far as aliens go, I really can't argue against Edric's argument of improbability against aliens existing... despite how much my childlike imagination wants there to be.

[Andrew]

How did this turn into alien argument?

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc). I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Probability that aliens are flying around probing people is much less likely.

[TheRedDuke05]

How did this turn into alien argument?

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc). I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Probability that aliens are flying around probing people is much less likely.

You missed when me an Dante turned this thread about wether a single nation a good or not  ;D

And don't forget Mars has traces of slowing water in it, which probably means there was life there at some point besides the little mircrobs we have seen there.

[Acriku]

You should know topics never stay exactly on track Andrew ;) To do otherwise would be against our traditional values.

There's probably life in the Universe, but for it to be in a form with which we could communicate with is practically improbable. Edric can explain it better than I could.

[Spectral Paladin]

Some things are more important than the survival of a destructive species.

Who would be the judge of what is important and what isn't?

If it considered itself inferior to the wolf, it would leave it well alone, and try to survive elsewhere.

No, it wouldn't. Its survival matters above all. That's not called being arrogant; it's being egoist.

I can't think of a basis where it is acceptable to cause extinction, with the possible exception of pure profit.

Survival is the profit humans will get (note that it isn't necessary to cause extinction of another species in order to colonize the other planet. It might be needed though). Besides, if there is no basis where to make a judgement, no conclusion can be drawn anad therefore you cannot characterize causing extinction as unacceptable.

And I didn't say sacrifice ourselves, I said don't sacrifice others.

If we need to destroy another species so as to survive and we don't, we are essentially sacrificing ourselves.

Nature stops when it has had enough.

That happens because there is balance in nature. If another species were to somehow gain the upper hand, it wouldn't stop from doing whatever is necessary for its survival.

And what will make the solar panels? The tyres, the seats, the bumpers, the radio, what will they be made of? Wood and wool? Is that what you plan to replace plastics with?

I am not trying to suggest an actual solution.

[Dante]

You will automatically hasten it if you don't try to survive, just like the human species. If we do not spread to other worlds, then we will simply die out. To survive you must expand.

Four words. Birth control and recycling.

And how does that species recognize that time? When huge alien ships are hovering over our cities? An educated species would look for other ways to survive. I wouldn't believe it one day that a we would not find another way to survive if we were faced with extinction - no matter what the threat.

Sure, we can find ways to survive. But there are limits. Or there should be. I'm not saying that we should all give up now, just that once the population reaches a certain stage (which some might argue it already has) we cut back rather than spread out.

I don't know how things will look like when we come to that stage, as I said, it is up to humanity to realize that humans are humans, not different spicies living on the same planet. I would much rather see that colonized planets would be "owned" by the whole of humanity, and not a country or a corporation. But to do that, we need a change in the world systems we have - or, yes, that might be the situation.

What country has jurisdriction over the moon?

Technically, none. Practically, whoever has the power to get there and use it. And I believe there have been instances of selling property on the moon...

Ants are a species that live in huge colonies, and one of their greatest threats is each other. It has been theorised that if ants ever stopped fighting each other and started to work together, nothing and nobody would be safe. Fortunately, they spend all their time fighitng and killing each other, and so leave the rest of us alone. That pretty much explains my attitude toward human unity. We need opposition to each other, lest we grow too powerful.

The definition of intelligent life is that one that can communicate with each other, one that knows that it exists. If you mean we would have the right to kill and plunder all kinds of "alien animal" life on other planets as soon as we get there, I would say that is not the case. It is not only in our being to explore, it is in us to take care of those environments and life-forms should we decide to colonize such a planet.

Intelligence doesn't mean that we are free to do whatever we want to any lifeform that do not have intelligence.

And what if our very presence harms them? What if their very presence harms us? If two species caannot coexist, what happens then? Our interference could have a destructive effect, even if intentions were benign. The settlers in America attempted to 'educate' the natives in how to farm 'properly,' i.e. using European methods. They failed to realise that their methods just would not work in a foreign terrain, and the result was terrible harvests. Good intentions, bad results. The same can be said of introducing the cane toad and rabbit to Australia.

Thus the reason for colonization. If that planet has a completely different ecosystem, then we would probably leave it alone, I don't really know. But of all the stars in the universe, some of them just have to have other habitable or semi-habitable planets. The hard part is to get there.

Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

That we don't know anything about now. It seems to me like you're thinking that when we find, and get to that planet, we will still be at our current technological capabilities, which I doubt.

But you are also thinking in a dystophical way. Why is it so impossible to just live side-by-side on that planet?

If we had our current technology, we would be able to get there. No, what I believe will not change is human attitude, which is essentially destructive and self-centred. I do not believe that, upon finding a habitable alien world, we would spend the remotest ammount of time examining it from orbit before plunging in and building bases. Examination period should exceed several hundred years.

As for living side by side... Every single time a foreign lifeform has been introduced into an ecosystem here, it has been a disaster. Rabbits and cane toads in Australia, rats and pigs on Mauritius, rhododendrons... just about everywhere, the list goes on.

"When a foreign species is introduced into an ecosystem, often the ecosystem contains no natural predators for the new species. This lack of predators sometimes leads to; in conjunction with a supply of food suitable for the new species, a period of exponential growth of the species. This growth and severe increase in the size of the population can cause a shortage of food for native species. When this occurs, the native species disappear and the biodiversity in the ecosystem is reduced. The carrying capacity is also reduced because the ecosystem will not be capable of supporting the same amount of life. If one species hogs the food and does not contribute itself to the food chain, the balance is disrupted and there will be less available for the native species."

And from http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/invasive_species.htm

"We can thus conclude that invasive species are:

A major threat to ecosystem health (especially where ecosystems are already impacted)

A major factor in species extinction, especially in tropical climates and on islands

A major threat for global biodiversity, because the transport of species in essence creates one global ecosystem

The cause of major financial damages

Hardly or not limited in spread by international treaties"

That's why not.

Yes - if that planet has it's own inhabitants. As I said before, it all depends on how humanity will be when we get there. If we seek minerals and money, then sure, it would probably be one of the biggest massacres humanity will commit. But you must also take in account that other alien civilizations most probably also colonize space, when they get to that stage. If so, it would mean that the whole universe is filled with "racial arrogant and violent aliens", which would make the whole question of existance even more meaningless.

You're assuming that they think like you. There is every possibility that they think like me, and stay at home. That's what makes them alien, being different. If they exist. And the point does not just apply if the planet has sentient inhabitants. Lifeless balls of rock and ice are also included.

That is just like saying we shouldn't research a cure to cancer - since that is an organism, and we shouldn't mess with it. Or HIV/AIDS, or any other deceases.

Cancer is a malfunction in a body's own systems. It is not caused by an infectious agent or species. Otherwise it would be contagious, wouldn't it?

Those diseases that are caused by microscopic life are a threat to us, true, but none of them have actually wiped out the population. I think that they provide a much-needed cap on the population. Everything has its place, and disease is an important part of many ecosystems. Smallpox-style eradications aren't such a good idea, really. Now conditions such as Cancer, Alzheimer

[Dude_Doc]

As far as aliens go, I really can't argue against Edric's argument of improbability against aliens existing... despite how much my childlike imagination wants there to be.

Actually, I don't think that it is childish at all to think that we are alone in the universe. Once, I believed that there were aliens in the universe, that there must be, and that people who thought "no, I don't believe they exist" were stupid and ignorant.

But after all, what do we know? We have a sound theory of the probability of alien life on other places (which said something of 30,000 civilizations in this galaxy alone, no?), but more than that, we simply don't know.

If the universe is virtually infinite, then there is probably good reason there would be at least "life" (whether it is plant, animal, bacteria etc).

But the universe is not infinite. But it is really huge. It is so huge that a civilization could rise and fall, and by the time we get the first signal they sent out in space (or encounter one of their sattelites), that civilization could be long gone. Maybe the universe is so big that civilizations simply can't contact each other, and even if they could, messages would take centuries to get from planet to planet.

Then, of course, the alien civilization could just as well be very aggressive, uncaring of their environment, greedy to the core, and so on.

So the question isn't really if there is alien life, but how they are, what they are, and probably most importantly, where they are (you wouldn't want a hostile civilization to live close to you, right?).

I mean how is it possible that Earth is where it is at? If another planet in another galaxy has the same properties as earth, why couldn't life develope there?

Why must there be other intelligences in the universe? Maybe we got "lucky" in a way that we got an almost perfect planet? Personally, I do believe that there is other civilizations on other planets, but that is where it all stops. Do they have the capability to come here? Are they still at the stone age? etc...

No, it wouldn't. Its survival matters above all. That's not called being arrogant; it's being egoist.

Is it egoism that a lifeform wants to live? Are you selfish when you choose to survive with a weak paycheck, instead of giving it all to a homeless guy? Maybe it is in the bear's nature to choose it's own survival in front of the wolf's?

Ants are a species that live in huge colonies, and one of their greatest threats is each other. It has been theorised that if ants ever stopped fighting each other and started to work together, nothing and nobody would be safe. Fortunately, they spend all their time fighitng and killing each other, and so leave the rest of us alone. That pretty much explains my attitude toward human unity. We need opposition to each other, lest we grow too powerful.

But humans are not controlled by a hive-mind, like the ants are. We build, or should build, our society on respect for each other, helping each other, being equal towards each other. Ants are controlled by the allmighty queen, they can't do anything by themselves.

And what if our very presence harms them? What if their very presence harms us? If two species caannot coexist, what happens then?

Then, most likely, we won't live side by side.

Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

According to whom? God? A universal artificial intelligence? The UFO's? Who?

If we had our current technology, we would be able to get there. No, what I believe will not change is human attitude, which is essentially destructive and self-centred.

You seem to think that humans are the single, most evil force in the history of everything. If there is other alien life-forms, they'd most likely behave like us: "destructive and self-centered".

I do not believe that, upon finding a habitable alien world, we would spend the remotest ammount of time examining it from orbit before plunging in and building bases.

Yes, if it is a lifeless piece of rock similar to Mars or something.

Examination period should exceed several hundred years.

Is that because of your hate against humanity or is it from a scientific point of view?

That's why not.

Mmmh... okey, we'll leave Mars for the bacteria...

You're assuming that they think like you.

Not just me, but the majority of the humans on this planet.

Those diseases that are caused by microscopic life are a threat to us, true, but none of them have actually wiped out the population. I think that they provide a much-needed cap on the population.

It's always easy to talk so lightly about human and humanity that way, isn't it? Until one day, when you wake up with the decease.

[Dante]

But humans are not controlled by a hive-mind, like the ants are. We build, or should build, our society on respect for each other, helping each other, being equal towards each other. Ants are controlled by the allmighty queen, they can't do anything by themselves.

That's beside the point. If the Queens were prepared to work together, they could seriously harm the world. Same goes for humans. The divides between factions of the species keep it from grow too powerful.

Then, most likely, we won't live side by side.

Yes. And the alternative is?

According to whom? God? A universal artificial intelligence? The UFO's? Who?

Common sense. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken. It goes along with such sayings as look before you leap, don't bite off more than you can chew, size isn't everything, etc.

You seem to think that humans are the single, most evil force in the history of everything.

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe that humanity is destructive, careless, self-centred, short-sighted, and generally dim. Note that this applies only on a large scale. On an individual scale, some of those qualities are useful in given situations.

If there is other alien life-forms, they'd most likely behave like us: "destructive and self-centered".

Why?

Yes, if it is a lifeless piece of rock similar to Mars or something.

Precisely. That's bad.

Is that because of your hate against humanity or is it from a scientific point of view?

Both. I think that the study should be carried out correctly for as long as is necessary. If that is so long as to prevent colonisation, all the better. Humanity doesn't deserve it.

Mmmh... okey, we'll leave Mars for the bacteria...

Good.

Not just me, but the majority of the humans on this planet.

The point still stands... What makes you think that an alien race will think anything like the way you (or they) do?

It's always easy to talk so lightly about human and humanity that way, isn't it? Until one day, when you wake up with the decease.

It's spelt 'disease.' And one of the nice things about diseases is that they rarely discriminate among their victims. So anyone and everyone could get them, if they don't take the proper precautions. Or cheat.

[Spectral Paladin]

Four words. Birth control and recycling.

One day eventually we will need to expand even if we employ these methods.

Sure, we can find ways to survive. But there are limits. Or there should be. I'm not saying that we should all give up now, just that once the population reaches a certain stage (which some might argue it already has) we cut back rather than spread out.

My point exactly. Same with the ants. This is not a good thing. Balance should come before any one species.

Then somehow nature will make sure to set the limits for us. There is no example of a lifeform setting its own limits.

In an ideal world, a group of intelligent, rational people.

That's theoritical and subjective. Who is considered intelligent?

You may want to rephrase that, I can't make any sense of it.

You said there is no base where causing extinction of a species is acceptable. It isn't unacceptable either though.

You also said that it may only be seen as acceptable on the basis on profit. Survival is the profit humankind will get (if is necessary to exterminate another species to do that).

There is never a 'need.' If a species threatens to destroy us, we run. Easy.

Run to where? Another planet? I thought you didn't want that. But certainly, if we find a planet whose ecosystem will be destroyed by human colonization, we can search for another.

Same thing.

Since when arrogant and egoist are the same things  :O?

Is it egoism that a lifeform wants to live? Are you selfish when you choose to survive with a weak paycheck, instead of giving it all to a homeless guy? Maybe it is in the bear's nature to choose it's own survival in front of the wolf's?

It is indeed selfish. And it is in every animal's nature (including us). We 'd rather survive even if that means someone else will die - someone maybe with greater potential who could possibly accomplish more tihngs.

[Dante]

One day eventually we will need to expand even if we employ these methods.

Not the way I envision them.

Then somehow nature will make sure to set the limits for us. There is no example of a lifeform setting its own limits.

We have, unfortunately, moved beyond nature's capacity to limit our development. The best efforts have been the development of new diseases such as HIV and ebola, and even they aren't being so effective. Short of a global pandemic, nature has very little left to test us with.

That's theoritical and subjective. Who is considered intelligent?

People who can see a bigger picture. Not necessarily the same one, mind you.

You said there is no base where causing extinction of a species is acceptable. It isn't unacceptable either though.

It is one or the other. In this case it is unacceptable.

You also said that it may only be seen as acceptable on the basis on profit. Survival is the profit humankind will get (if is necessary to exterminate another species to do that).

I said that profit was the only basis I could think of for causing extinction. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

Run to where? Another planet? I thought you didn't want that. But certainly, if we find a planet whose ecosystem will be destroyed by human colonization, we can search for another.

There won't be one. And I figure that we can just keep running. Never find a planet, never settle down, eventually our transport will give out and we all die. :)

Since when arrogant and egoist are the same things

[Edric O]

Some things are more important than the survival of a destructive species.

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

[Andrew]

Nicely put Edric O

Never thought of humanity that way.

Kinda like Noah's Ark, but in space.

[TheRedDuke05]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth.

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth. So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Edrico that was a beautiful analogy..... i got all teary eyed.

[Dude_Doc]

Same goes for humans. The divides between factions of the species keep it from grow too powerful.

On the contrary, how many wars have we waged? How many environments have we destroyed? Think how many animals we have killed because of competition, and not cooperation. We went to Africa and America, we thought that we, the white European man and woman, stood over the "wild negro" or the "terrorizing indian". How would the world look if we respected them as human beings when we first encountered them? And this is just a small example.

Yes. And the alternative is?

Alternative of staying or leaving a lifeless rock in space?

Common sense. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken. It goes along with such sayings as look before you leap, don't bite off more than you can chew, size isn't everything, etc.

I don't think we can argue much on this. You're saying that humans don't have the brains to understand colonization, while I see it as a mission, a future - who we are, no?

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe that humanity is destructive, careless, self-centred, short-sighted, and generally dim.

You know why? Because humanity has been ruled by governments and dictators. Our systems are filled with corruption and confusion. You're forced to think like everybody else, to watch on CNN/Fox News, to do the bidding of your president, or your king, or your CEO. You're forced to give up your friends in order to survive yourself. When we change the general system, then we can change ourselves. When we work for each other, and not the corporation, only then can we truly be ready for space.

But until that phase, if we go out in space in our current political stage, then of course we will bring with us the dumbness, destruction and the dimness of ourselves.

Why?

You don't think it would be very odd if humans were the only race with the properties you described?

The point still stands... What makes you think that an alien race will think anything like the way you (or they) do?

Because, apparently and obviously, most organic life on this planet behave that way: to preserve oneself. To survive. With intelligence comes feelings, along with the belief of being able to survive, to deny demise. We already know that we're going to die, all of us. We know that humanity will die out one day, or die with the universe, if we survive that long. Once again, what is the point of doing anything?

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth.

I don't think that the sun is massive (/heavy) enough to form a black hole after it's demise. However, you're right that we need to get away from here - within 2 billion years :D ...

Besides, it has been theorized that each galaxy has a huge black hole in it's center, thus the reason for all the millions of stars to spin around in galaxies, like they do. What else could have such a gravitational pull to capture all the stars? Though, we still don't "know" what gravity is, or what causes gravity.

So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

Trust me - there are probably billions of black holes in all around the universe. So long we keep out of the event horizon, we should be fine.

Because, you wouldn't want to be in a place with literally no time and no space? :D

Edrico that was a beautiful analogy..... i got all teary eyed.

Pi-roger that.

[Dante]

Yes, such as the survival of Life as a whole. And I'd like to remind you, Dante, that Life has less than 4 billion years left to exist unless it finds some means of transportation beyond the confines of Earth. And guess what? Those means of transportation have just sprung into being recently. They are called Homo Sapiens. Us. WE, and we alone, have the power to spread life across the galaxy and the universe. Without us, Life is doomed. With us, Life has a chance to achieve exponential growth, to populate countless worlds and produce a diversity of species that is unthinkable on our single little planet.

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Ah, that would be great. Like Titan A.E. Too bad that most of this organ is cancerous, and busy producing useless and harmful cells that kill the whole body. Once again, I agree with you in principle. If humanity were to dedicate itself to the survival of life as a whole (and the preservation of the non-living as well), then I would be prepared to concede the argument.

Actually we need to get as far away from earth as possible, since when the sun goes nova and creates a huge black hole, most of the planets of the solar system will be destroyed, including Earth. So we probably have to go into another galaxy just to survive that.

You don't know much about astronomy, do you?

As Edric pointed out, a supernova is not the only fate that the sun could have in reserve for us. It could become a Red Giant first, and from there become a dwarf of any colour, or even a pulsar. It might form a Black Hole, but then again it might not. There are black holes in the galaxy already (some theorise that every galaxy has one in its centre, with the stars orbiting around it. Makes sense, considering the gravitational pull that the centre must exert...), so moving to another one really isn't necessary. If we were to move, in astronomical terms it would not have to be far. Probably not out of this arm of the galaxy. Assuming that there's another habitable planet out there.

On the contrary, how many wars have we waged? How many environments have we destroyed? Think how many animals we have killed because of competition, and not cooperation. We went to Africa and America, we thought that we, the white European man and woman, stood over the "wild negro" or the "terrorizing indian". How would the world look if we respected them as human beings when we first encountered them? And this is just a small example.

...

You just supported my argument. We have both said that competition harms the human race. I add that this harm prevents us from growing too poweful through cooperation. You seem to agree.

Alternative of staying or leaving a lifeless rock in space?

Alternative to living side-by-side with a harmful (not to say hostile) species. For example, we find a planet populated by cat-like animals that give out a toxin which is deadly to humans. These creatures are docile, but numerous. You say we don't live side by side with them, so the alternative is?

I don't think we can argue much on this. You're saying that humans don't have the brains to understand colonization, while I see it as a mission, a future - who we are, no?

No, you're straying from the point. Say a fox wanders past a dead rabbit, that has been poisoned and left for the fox. Or a child wandering down the street who sees a smaller, weaker child with a new toy. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

You know why? Because humanity has been ruled by governments and dictators. Our systems are filled with corruption and confusion. You're forced to think like everybody else, to watch on CNN/Fox News, to do the bidding of your president, or your king, or your CEO. You're forced to give up your friends in order to survive yourself. When we change the general system, then we can change ourselves. When we work for each other, and not the corporation, only then can we truly be ready for space.

You believe that's possible? Because I don't think that society shapes us, I think that we shape society. Selfish, cruel, and destructive.

You don't think it would be very odd if humans were the only race with the properties you described?

Statistically speaking, we're less likely to meet a hostile race than an indifferent one. Logically speaking, there is no possible way to guarantee or guess at the psychology of an alien species.

Because, apparently and obviously, most organic life on this planet behave that way: to preserve oneself. To survive. With intelligence comes feelings, along with the belief of being able to survive, to deny demise. We already know that we're going to die, all of us. We know that humanity will die out one day, or die with the universe, if we survive that long. Once again, what is the point of doing anything?

There isn't an answer to that. Everyone makes their own.

See above point. There is no guarantee that aliens will be anything like us, or any other kind of life that we know of.

I don't think that the sun is massive (/heavy) enough to form a black hole after it's demise. However, you're right that we need to get away from here - within 2 billion years :D ...

Besides, it has been theorized that each galaxy has a huge black hole in it's center, thus the reason for all the millions of stars to spin around in galaxies, like they do. What else could have such a gravitational pull to capture all the stars? Though, we still don't "know" what gravity is, or what causes gravity.

Oh, someone else said this as well. Oh well *shrug.*

At the most basic level, this boils down to a belief that humanity just doesn't deserve to survive. If, as I said above, the species would change, then perhaps the situation would change too.

[Acriku]

Think of it this way: Human beings are the Earth's reproductive organs. Our mission is to create new Earths out of lifeless planets. And like all reproductive organs, we are using up lots of resources that would otherwise go towards the other "organs" of the Earth. When a plant creates flowers and fruit, this takes a lot of effort. It diverts resources that could be used to grow more leaves or roots. But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because flowers and fruit are needed to make new plants. Likewise, human beings represent a great sacrifice for Life. They use up immense amounts of resources and harm some of the other "organs". But it is a worthwhile sacrifice, because humans are needed to make new Earths.

In brief, the survival and expansion of the human species is the essential prerequisite for the survival and expansion of all Life.

Then we must pool our blood (or resources) to one part of the body (or economic structure), and erect a viable plan to penetrate the folds of space. We have four billion years to give space the best penetration its ever had!

Sorry Edric... couldn't resist.

[Dude_Doc]

You just supported my argument. We have both said that competition harms the human race. I add that this harm prevents us from growing too poweful through cooperation. You seem to agree.

Yes, we both agree that humans, and almost all organisms are better off cooperating than competing with each other. What I meant was that I believe that if we cooperate, we will also change our current ways of doing things. Do I agree that we become powerful if we cooperate? Yes, I do. I believe that mankind will develop such a knowledge, respect and "brotherhood" among each other - a force never before seen in human history. Our potential will become enormous.

Do I believe that we can become too powerful? No. And even if we somehow do, then by then we would have evolved into a stage where such power is understood and wielded as part of "everything".

Alternative to living side-by-side with a harmful (not to say hostile) species. For example, we find a planet populated by cat-like animals that give out a toxin which is deadly to humans. These creatures are docile, but numerous. You say we don't live side by side with them, so the alternative is?

Then we leave that planet alone. Once again, it depends on how we are when we get to their planet. If interplanetary corporations loom around that time, then of course the answer would be "extermination of this deadly species".

Say a fox wanders past a dead rabbit, that has been poisoned and left for the fox. Or a child wandering down the street who sees a smaller, weaker child with a new toy. Just because something is there for the taking, doesn't mean that it should be taken.

Once again, who decides this? No one does. You could just as well say "just because someone needs help, you shouldn't help that person". If an alien civilization don't own the planet, if the planet is a barren god-forsaken rock somewhere near hell, without any form of life on it, the I think it is pretty justified to colonize that place.

You believe that's possible? Because I don't think that society shapes us, I think that we shape society. Selfish, cruel, and destructive.

We did shape society at a time in the past, until society shaped us. I believe that it is possible to reverse the effect and become ourselves again.

See above point. There is no guarantee that aliens will be anything like us, or any other kind of life that we know of.

No, and there are no guarantees either that aliens will be completely different.

[Dante]

Yes, we both agree that humans, and almost all organisms are better off cooperating than competing with each other.

Not better off, just more successful in the short term.

What I meant was that I believe that if we cooperate, we will also change our current ways of doing things. Do I agree that we become powerful if we cooperate? Yes, I do. I believe that mankind will develop such a knowledge, respect and "brotherhood" among each other - a force never before seen in human history. Our potential will become enormous.

Once again, this is not a good thing. We are already too powerful. Just think of the ants. If they worked together, moving everything grain by grain, they could destroy almost anything. That wouldn't be very healthy for the rest of us. If humans become too powerful by working together, there will be virtually no limit to what they could achieve. I fear for exactly what those 'achievements' would consist of.

Do I believe that we can become too powerful? No. And even if we somehow do, then by then we would have evolved into a stage where such power is understood and wielded as part of "everything".

We have the power to destroy this world more than sixty times over. That's too much already. I see no enlightenment.

Then we leave that planet alone. Once again, it depends on how we are when we get to their planet. If interplanetary corporations loom around that time, then of course the answer would be "extermination of this deadly species".

If we are on a mission to preserve all life as Edric lined out, yes. If not, I doubt that humanity would balk at the destruction.

But that was just an obvious example. What if thise was a bacterial agent? A plant vital to the ecosystem of the planet? A non-vital plant?

Once again, who decides this? No one does. You could just as well say "just because someone needs help, you shouldn't help that person". If an alien civilization don't own the planet, if the planet is a barren god-forsaken rock somewhere near hell, without any form of life on it, the I think it is pretty justified to colonize that place.

Because you believe that humanity deserves it, and that there is nothing more that the planet could achieve. I do not.

We did shape society at a time in the past, until society shaped us. I believe that it is possible to reverse the effect and become ourselves again.

We are ourselves. Society reflects what is put into it, and what is put into it is done by individuals.

No, and there are no guarantees either that aliens will be completely different.

The point that I've been trying to get across is that there are no guarantees at all. "Logically speaking, there is no possible way to guarantee or guess at the psychology of an alien species." I.e. discussion on the subject is pointless.

[Spectral Paladin]

We have, unfortunately, moved beyond nature's capacity to limit our development. The best efforts have been the development of new diseases such as HIV and ebola, and even they aren't being so effective. Short of a global pandemic, nature has very little left to test us with.

But according to you, nature makes sure to balance everything, so why it cannot set limits for us? And if it can't, why should we?

People who can see a bigger picture. Not necessarily the same one, mind you.

What is a bigger picture?

It is one or the other. In this case it is unacceptable.

By you.

I said that profit was the only basis I could think of for causing extinction. I didn't say that I agreed with it.

Your view.

Egoist: 1- One devoted to one's own interests and advancement; an egocentric person. 2- a conceited and self-centered person [syn: egotist, swellhead] 3- a self-centered person with little regard for others [syn: egocentric].

Perhaps you'd care to tell me how that isn't arrogent?

I don't need to. It's obvious.

On an individual basis, fine. That's just great. On a political basis, yes that's good. On a global, or interstellar level, no. Humanity has no right to claim knowledge or capability out there.

I didn't expect you to use generic phrases like "humanity has no right". Who hands out the rights to do things? Think of what you say: "just because something can be taken, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken". But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken either.

There won't be one. And I figure that we can just keep running. Never find a planet, never settle down, eventually our transport will give out and we all die. :)

Clearly you hate humanity. You refuse to see the great potential we have - which is not to destroy.

[TheRedDuke05]

Well his is a cymek after all, and cymeks want to enslave all humanity  :'(