7 ms·
That's naive. Why would I let it go? Firstly, contrary to Benatar, our lives are not "meaningless", even from a cosmic perspective. Our personal problems, conc
by kruasan 6y ago
That's naive. Why would I let it go?
Firstly, contrary to Benatar, our lives are not "meaningless", even from a cosmic perspective. Our personal problems, concerns, relationships, and feelings are in no way less significant merely in the virtue of the size of the (multi)verse. Your feeling of pain is still pain, whether the universe contains billions of galaxies, or is just 10 light-years across. Same with joy, same with health, everything.
Secondly, our lives are certainly not inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The whole future of the Sun depends on whether humanity's descendants exist long enough to develop the technology to stop it from going nova and gather its energy. If Earth is indeed the only planet in the observable universe to contain life, then our lives are of tremendous significance. Either we live and hopefully, build grand Kardashev IV-utopia among the stars changing the universe completely, or we go extinct.
- rlonn 6y agoNaive you are, if you believe life favours those who aren't naive And, to nitpick: the sun will never go nova.
- nostromo 6y agoI mean... the second law of thermodynamics says we’ll go extinct no matter what we do eventually. There’s no denying that the heat death of the universe is a pretty depressing idea.
- tutfbhuf 6y ago> stop it from going nova Somehow preventing our sun to swell into a red giant is also only a short term and meaningless problem in the grand scheme of things. You would have to prevent the heat death of the universe if you want human mankind to exist forever or accept that things will eventually come to an end.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoOne step at a time. First, we make our sun eternal. Then, we fix the universe.
- mikeyjk 6y agoOr flee to an alternate universe
- tutfbhuf 6y agoEven if we assume we could somehow do this, I would recommend you to watch some Star Trek episodes with Q. Living forever can be even more depressing than to live one finite life.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoAnd I'd wary against generalizing from fictional evidence. As much as I love Star Trek, it has one hell of a anti-life-extension, anti-transhumanism bent. Perhaps because it's a story about humans becoming a better people, and for it to be directly relatable, it has to involve humans like us - unmodded, whether by genetics or technology.
- tutfbhuf 6y agoI mean you can use your own brain and think about the idea of living forever and the consequences it would have. The more I think about it, the more it becomes a depressing idea at least for me.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI've done that a lot, and I find it an optimistic idea. Sure, we'd need to refactor some things in society to root out the hidden structural dependencies on life expectancy being double-digit years, but other than that? I see mostly upsides. (And in terms of boredom, because I'm guessing that's what you allude to by invoking Q: you can always decide to end your existence after you get bored with eternal life.)
- tutfbhuf 6y agoIt's about meaninglessness. Maybe it's just me, but things (including life) that are finite are valuable and special for me. Also in terms of Lord of the Rings I would rather be a human or hobbit instead of an elf. But I respect elves and get your point, it's just not for me.