this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
71 points (94.9% liked)
Philosophy
1765 readers
1 users here now
All about Philosophy.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The alternative is extinction, plain and simple. The only reason we even are where we are as a species is due solely to the undying drive to seek more knowledge as a means of survival.
A couple hundred thousand years of continued existence as a species seems like a pretty decent accomplishment.
Extinction is an interesting existential threat, but I believe a more reasonable motivation would be not wanting to see living humans suffer through collapse. So like the extinction of the good life.
Up to a point I think we'd survive, just not in a form that we would recognise, or perhaps even care to preserve.
Hard disagree, we do not survive as a species without intelligence. It has been the most important factor in our survival since we developed as a distinct group of hominids.
Surviving but reverting or regressing to a form that doesn’t not explore intelligence as a means of survival is the same as extinction in my book. Interestingly this reminds me of some of the fates in ‘All Tomorrows’
I don't think there's any disagreement to be had. My wording was poorly chosen. I meant reasonable not like as an ought, but as a realistic description of the animating factor in people's lives - caring about the future of humans they immediately know about.
I'm also a huge fan of Nemo Ramjet's writing.