 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will eventually
> kill ourselves
I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] u washingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
> > It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
eventually
> > kill ourselves
>
> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
non-consoled.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody escreveu:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
>
>>> It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
> eventually
>>> kill ourselves
>> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
>
> I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
> or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> non-consoled.
Well, I'm pretty sure the last man on Earth far off in the future will
say the same careless thing as you now, but is about to die from a
terrible tragedy anyway. :P
This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
of responsability.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one way
> or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> non-consoled.
I believe it's an artifact of caring about things which don't directly
impact me. I suspect you agree with this, so perhaps there's some term
that we're reading different meanings in to?
On a bit of a tangent, I do agree that it's highly unlikely that
humanity as a whole is in any danger of actual extinction in the near
future. I don't think it's an important point though, since there's
plenty enough bad things that can happen to both us and other species
without any need for our total extinction, and there is at least the
possibility of some of those obtaining during our lifetimes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> On a bit of a tangent, I do agree that it's highly unlikely that
> humanity as a whole is in any danger of actual extinction in the near
> future.
Yeah, humans are rather good at surviving too. Where other uber-survivor
species are tough, humans have really good brains, and those are rather
useful for surviving, so even a really enormous (human-caused) ecocatastrophe
is most probably not going to kill every single person on Earth. In the
worst case scenario it might be that modern civilization as we know it
might crumble and humanity will return to the middle ages (in an environment
much less hospitable than back then), but it most probably won't kill them
all out. If because of nothing else, it will be because at some point the
modern civilization will be so destroyed that it will be incapable of
continuing the destruction of the ecosystem, which will allow the ecosystem
to slowly start recuperating (during the next few thousands of years or so).
If the human species some day goes extinct, it will most probably be
something not caused by humans themselves (such as for example a world-wide
lethal pandemia or similar).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If because of nothing else, it will be because at some point the
> modern civilization will be so destroyed that it will be incapable of
> continuing the destruction of the ecosystem, which will allow the ecosystem
> to slowly start recuperating (during the next few thousands of years or so).
Exactly. That and the fact that the resource requirements for a
smallish population of humans scraping by is vastly less than that for a
massive global civilization, so even a pretty wrecked environment could
probably support a small civilization of sorts for an indefinite amount
of time (although, as you point out, the environment would certainly
recover in reality).
It's an interesting (and potentially disheartening) thought experiment
to try to think of what the probable steady-state modes for our
civilization might be, assuming that we avoid collapse and assuming
nothing else completely changes the rules (aliens, the singularity, FTL
travel, etc). I do think that the rather consistently low birth rates
in first world countries give some cause for hope here though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:49fa1463$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody escreveu:
> > "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> > news:49f9fa2b$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Warp wrote:
> >
> >>> It's sad, really. Maybe the only consolation is that we will
> > eventually
> >>> kill ourselves
> >> I don't know how consoled I feel by this possibility.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure you both will be dead long before humanity expires one
way
> > or the other, so I fail to see why one could either be consoled or
> > non-consoled.
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure the last man on Earth far off in the future will
> say the same careless thing as you now, but is about to die from a
> terrible tragedy anyway. :P
>
> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
> of responsability.
I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
cannot be, part of. Assume parallel universes, for a moment. Should I care
that in one of those universes, "my" counterpart dies a horrific and painful
death? Well, a human being living on this universe but 500 years from now
(in either direction) is just as, if not more, detached from my reality. I
don't care one way or another.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> death? Well, a human being living on this universe but 500 years from now
> (in either direction) is just as, if not more, detached from my reality. I
> don't care one way or another.
Emphasis on *your* reality.
And I'll keep that in mind the next time you complain about the LHC.
You're not a part of their reality, so I'll remind them not to listen to
your complaints.
--
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>> of responsability.
>
> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
> cannot be, part of. Assume parallel universes, for a moment. Should I care
> that in one of those universes, "my" counterpart dies a horrific and painful
> death? Well, a human being living on this universe but 500 years from now
> (in either direction) is just as, if not more, detached from my reality. I
> don't care one way or another.
Which is why we can trash this world so badly within a human lifetime:
there are no consequences.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
> cannot be, part of.
You don't have kids, do you? Of course I don't either, but that's beyond the
point. I mean, really? Stewardship? Altruism? Responsibility? Are these
foreign concepts?
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
