MovieChat Forums > Science > Thinking about current affairs led me to...

Thinking about current affairs led me to this idea

posted 3 months ago by Sparky (2582)
18 replies | jump to latest

Today we see threats of nuclear war, experimental medication being dispensed and er, strongly recommended by government purportedly to combat what looks to be a released virus that men made. We are seemingly at the precipice of potential extinction at every turn. Advancements allowed for these activities, in science, math, etc- and humans.

Maybe the corona virus was leaked on purpose, maybe not, but the official line is that it was an accident. Since the common man is not privy to the details of their "gain of function" particulars we are right to mistrust and fear.

I started to consider the idea that the eventual destination of evolution might be annihilation of the species. Whether or this adds clarity or muddies the waters some it appears that there is strong evidence of a past nuclear war on Mars of all places. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

Extinction is inevitable. Even if we don't all kill each other, there is only one sun. The other stars are flying apart too fast to ever catch up to one. A sufficiently advanced civilization might be able to harvest the energy of a dying sun, and store it in some kind of super batteries... but once those run out, we die.

Personally, I am of the mind that life is a cruel mistake, and that no "greater good" can ever make up for the unnecessary suffering of even one conscious individual, meaning the quicker the extinction the better. The probability that there are others like us, going through the same scam is high. If the "big bang" was symmetrical, there may even be an unknown number of copies of us, living out our lives to the exact detail in an unknown number of directions across the universe, or multiverses.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

Well I'm not that nihilistic- IMO you just haven't figured it out yet and have trained yourself to see the world in an extremely negative light.

My post was specifically about the path of evolution, your answer sidestepped it. Now if you don't mind I will ramble a bit. Life is tough no doubt- I am stuck in bed 24/7 with severely advancing Rheumatoid Arthritis, recently lost my daughter and mother, gf of 22 years left instead of seeing me through it. I maintain a positive outlook, focus on what's good. No one guaranteed me anything in this life and sure I could go on about the conditions of my own but then I've already lost, and what about tomorrow? How, if I adopt a negative attitude, will I conjure the determination to face the pain to get myself to the bathroom?

It wasn't until I faced this sort of a rocky road that I was fully able to accept, and acceptance is the path to inner peace. That's it- acceptance. When we accept the things we have no power over then they cease their hold on us. Every day I say to myself that 'better men have gone through worse', and that helps. Next I recognize the gifts that God gave me. Don't believe in God? How about random chance? Treat it as an entity and you're on your way.

When I approach any debate, thought process, etc I divorce myself from emotion best I can- what place does emotion have in thought? Feelings will never ever be a friend to the thinking man. Butterflies in the stomach- what sort of sign is that for long-term relationship guarantees? The divorce rate tells us not much at all.

Sorry for going on.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

Evolution doesn't have a destination. It has no intent. People often perceive evolution as lifeforms adapting to the environment, but it's actually the opposite, the environment kills off anything that didn't adapt. Life can only advance to the "level" the environment allows. Contradictory to the view of creationism, the universe, or even this planet, isn't "fine tuned" for life. It's actually very difficult to survive here. I'm living life on easy mode, but that doesn't mean I will try to justify it against the ones who are on nightmare difficulty.

Mathematics is not an entity. Mathematics is not "god". There is no such thing as random chance, only trajectories and physics. The way energy waves interact with one another is not a gift. I think I've already figured out how the "big bang" occurred, and the only possible steps that could have enabled it. No appeal to a god or emotion is necessary.

Your inquiry isn't one of science, it's of philosophy. My philosophy can be labeled as "negative", but that has no bearing on the truth of how reality "works", or in my estimation, doesn't work.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

You're referring to evolution without help from the species in question- clearly I have altered the equation for the purposes of the discussion and any appeal to any other orientation is from it's beginning incorrect. The rest of the first paragraph is unnecessary to the conversation.

In my defense I never said that mathematics was an entity, and any furthering of this conversation can only go by the words that were said, please. BTW currently science is trending toward the idea that the classic theory of the "Big Bang" never actually happened.

Is there a philosophy section? I didn't notice, but please forgive my faux pas.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

What is evolution with help from the species in question? If it's steered by humans, I'm not sure that should be called evolution. Typically, we would call that technological advancement. I suppose the exception is if we're talking about psychological evolution, but that's more a reference to gaining maturity or wisdom. I have no idea which you're referring to.

I mentioned mathematics because you compared a "god" with random chance, and I believe mathematics(the structure of reality) and physics(the behavior of movement) disprove either concept. Science is trending away from the "big bang" for uncertainties that I believe I can account for. Regardless, what I refer to as the "big bang" is simply the separation of "nothing"(infinite potential) into negative and positive energy, which, by my own theory, is a necessity for a first motion.

Personally, I would put this in the politics section, since no one really posts in this section. If you think that's inappropriate to the direction you are trying to steer the conversation, then maybe general discussion. I've done my best to answer your inquiries, but apparently it wasn't what you were looking for. Maybe someone else will understand better.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

I see. Perhaps a new name for your own "Big Bang" is in order, to avoid potential confusion. Belief is great for what it is, and limited knowledge reveals limited understanding. The evolution I refer to in this case is a reference to the development of the brain and whatever else might be necessary for elimination of the species. Philosophy might see it from a POV, but it's possible sure connection to an advancing brain would not necessarily be readily apparent.

I'm sorry the placement has caused so much consternation- it was not my intent. IMO it's a perfect time to try the acceptance I mentioned earlier though. I go back to "The Serenity Prayer"-

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change things I can
and wisdom to know the difference."

My reaction wasn't that I was less that satisfied with your answer, it was that there was little in the way of answer and much in the way of attacking the location, the aspects that went into the question etc. IMO it still has not been reasonably addressed, but my health is not in a way to spend my time like this, spatting over details etc.

At any rate if you feel you did honestly attempt to answer I thank you for your time and effort.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

My brain has already developed to a state that it believes extinction is preferable to creating new life. It's not inconceivable that a species with technology advanced enough to choose this outcome would come to the same conclusion. It's also not inconceivable that a species could reach this level of advancement and still be too short-sighted to make the right decisions to avoid eliminating themselves. Is it inevitable? No... but, as I demonstrated, there comes a point where your civilization will go extinct even if you fight it to the bitter end.

The "serenity prayer" may be of comfort to you, but it's of no comfort to the young rat that had to be drowned in the toilet after struggling for hours to free herself from the snap trap that caught her by the snout, or the stray dog who got picked up by a neighborhood kid only to be left in an abandoned house and forgotten about until he starved to death, or the monkey being experimented on to see how many scorpion stings he can sustain before dying. Not only do I refuse to "accept" that, I curse any god who enabled it.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

Gotchya, but of course no animal has ever prayed in even the best of situations. It's a strictly human phenomenon. We digress...

There is likely more in heaven and earth that is allowed for in our philosophies here, variables that have not been considered of course. The thing that dooms a species from what I see is selfishness, fear, determination to loudly proclaim those familiar words "I am your overlord." It would be a philosophical or psychological topic if not for the particular line I have taken- does the advancement of the brain and power of the mind, as a direct result of evolution, should it be true, doom any and all species?

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

I'm not sure whether it's true that animals don't cry out for a higher power, whatever that may be, to save them in desperate situations. We're either not smart enough or not considerate enough to interpret their language, behavior or thought process.

I don't subscribe to the idea that our thoughts doom us, but they can be considered as a part(and result) of the environmental circumstances that already doom us.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

Fair enough. The argument you pursue here remains as a logical fallacy however known as 'Appeal to Nature'.

Thanks for the conversation and God bless.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

That doesn't even make sense. I can't be appealing to nature for justification when this whole time I've been arguing that the natural configuration of life is unjustifiable. I never argued extinction is preferable because it's natural, it's preferable because it prevents untold amounts of unjustifiable suffering caused by nature.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

It does actually. It happened when you compared animals to humans- that is all it takes, and everything else is just window dressing.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

How is that a fallacy? If I say a rabbit has two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, four limbs, a heart, liver, lungs, spleen, etc... and so does a human... that's a fallacy??

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

One of the best things I ever did was take 'Critical Thinking' in college- it changed language for me. I dunno if schools offer it anymore but it can be found as a college course for free on YouTube and it'll be well worth the time- you'll use it the rest of your life.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

Ok, but you're getting outclassed by a guy who didn't even go to college.

[–] Sparky (2582) 3 months ago

In a debate I would have destroyed you actually. To wit you've committed logical fallacies, referred to the Big Bang Theory, proclaimed that you have essentially it all figured out with a theory of your own which you brilliantly title the "Big Bang". I was trying to be nice but you're ill-informed, uninformed and arrogant for no reason. If you can put aside you ego you may be able to learn, but that's a big "if".

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 3 months ago

You can't even identify fallacies correctly. I never appealed to nature, and I'm not even convinced appealing to nature is always a fallacy. Things are as they are in nature because they were successful for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.

Most people think of "big bang" as the beginning of existence. Even if what scientists observed as the "big bang" is flawed, it still wouldn't disprove the necessity of a first motion, which I have a solid explanation for.

You are the one getting your ego hurt in this exchange. I'm fine. Let me know when you have an argument against anything I've said, I'll be happy to consider it.

[–] CarterBlunt (1382) 2 months ago

The thing that dooms a species from what I see is selfishness, fear, determination to loudly proclaim those familiar words "I am your overlord."

I think it can be argued this is the exact opposite of what dooms a species, at least in early development.

Selfishness, my species is the only one that matters, I can exploit or eliminate your species to climb the evolutionary ladder. I can exploit or eliminate members of my fellow species to make sure my genes are the ones passed on.

Fear, I can avoid danger and be suspicious of members of my own species trying to exploit or harm me.

"Overlord", I get to subdue other species or members of my own species and force them to live their lives as I deem fit, and treat them in any way I wish, and exploit them as a resource. I provide a unified direction and functional arrangement of members of my species to achieve random goals, such as building a pyramid.

Nature rewards these traits, and that is a problem, because it means life adapted to them, and it's difficult to determine the point where those instincts are no longer beneficial. Even if they're determined not to be, it's difficult to overwrite them. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but the odds are definitely stacked against us.