Hey all,
I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. This is a great discussion, and it kind of inspired me to throw my 2 cents in. My rambling 2 cents...alright, there's at least 12 bucks and change here... All this talk gets me a bit philosophical. :lol:
I've noticed that over the years, there has been an increase by the "mainstream" in the space flight community (professionals included), or at least the related news outlets, in expressing our justification for space exploration in terms of "survival of our species", "new earths", terraforming, etc. The terraforming bit, often attached to mars. Frankly, I have always found those kinds of justifications a bit uncomfortable, considering the amount of sci-fi influence involved. Not that fantasies don't have their place, heck everyone needs a motivation, something that sparks their inner interest. It's just that I think that our motivations and fantasies have a huge influence in how we yield and use the "tool" of science, for better or for worse. I don't know if that made sense...anyway, maybe somebody can express it better than I can.
I would like to throw out a couple of things for consideration.
My first thought is more on the pragmatic side. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we as a species will one day find enough "unity in will" to commit resources and develop the technology to terraform or find a new home after this one is "used up", hit by a huge object, etc. In this situation, how bad a shape will Earth have to be in for us to consider jumping ship? Wouldn't we be able to simply apply said technology to "fix" earth to a level that would be tolerable? You gotta admit, Earth would have to be
really bad for us to consider Mars as a tempting target for terraforming. Earth would have to be as bad as Mars is right now. Given that moving beyond our solar system is beyond all realm of possibility with any remotely conceivable technology, we are pretty much narrowed down to Mars. And if we were to become masters of time and space, my guess is that we would have the dying earth problem licked by then (or at least not really care about it).
My second thought (ok, rant) is more along philosiphical lines and my own personal conclusions (take it for what it is worth). I'll also speak in generalizations to make a point, so forgive me. From the overwhelmingly evolutionary point of view of todays scientific community,(and sci-fi writers) I find it a bit curious as to how uncomfortable many seem to be with the idea of death. We fight against it for some reason. Whether we are talking about personal death, or the death of our species. I would propose that the death of our species is not meaningful in the slightest, if we are in fact expecting evolution keep doing what it is doing. Actually never mind that, it
would have meaning in that the evolutionary process rooted out an unprepared or self-destructive species. So then, why would we be afraid of the inevitable? How could we object? We know (empirically speaking) that what lives, will die. We assume that species are capable of dying off, and will in all likelihood end up dead. So why not suck it up?
But on the other hand, it seems that many have this hope that the Nietzschian "Overmen" will spring forth from humanity to supercede/save it. A future where we hold hands for the common good (whatever that is), put our heads together and our personal needs aside, and do great things. Sounds great! Some hold to this as hope in humanity, what makes us special, that this desire for improvement is what gives us the right or capability to outsurvive other species. I would say that this is a tragic and unfounded hope. Hypothetical question: Do cockroaches or bacteria strive for these things? Actually, the idea of "improvement" is a value judgment that evolution is wholly uninterested with anyway. Evolution is about numbers, about survival.
I have a friend that identifies as an athiest/pagan/sometimes agnostic who is also a Unitarian. He is really big on the idea of "potential of humanity", much like the Overman idea. We frequently engage in friendly discussions about his upbeat conclusions about humanity. Of course, I like to rib him that he likes to focus on the positive and ignore the downward trend line. My conclusion from the observable evidence (personal observations included, I work with students and families of multiple urban and suburban public schools) is that humanity is definitely
not on the way up. With each generation, mistakes in parenting perpetuate and multiply, poverty is nearly as impenetrable as the speed of light, and the entitlement "me me me" attitude grows. Historically we know that natural occurrences can destroy the best of societies, and if that doesn't do it, our own greed will. Pockets of "improvement of humanity" are just that, pockets that are readily overcome by the reduced reproduction rate of those "enlightened" ones.
So my conclusion is that we need not worry about the death of our species. It actually doesn't concern us individually because we will be dead in short order. I don't think that one could reasonable say that it concerns us as a species, because it is very clear that we as a species don't actually speak with one voice, or have the same concerns or fears. This makes the idea of humanity as having a single goal of corporal survival/improvement, an untenable one. So then, how could we possibly agree on "getting off this rock" so that we could make it physical reality? That my friends is the definition of herding cats.
Thankfully, I'm not actually a nihilist. Even if I was, you wouldn't have to worry about me killing myself, because that would be pointless too. :lol: The above is my conclusion if forced to assume the above philosophical line of thought.
On one hand there is the expansion of man throughout the solar system and perhaps beyond. We are limited by what what we may find and how we choose to use it.
The biggest limitation I see is that we are limited beings. Our minds are bigger than anything else on us. Our minds don't limit us, our physical existence does.
On the other is to live only on Earth, expanding until its resources exhaust us, then stagnating until the end of the Earth.
One choice leads to life without a clear bound, the other leads to a certain death.
Another hypothetical...How long do we need to avoid death to call it a success? Will we as humans be "dead", if our limbs fall/float off, we develop space lungs, and our heads are integrated into our chests so as to avoid bumping it on the bulkhead?
