If humanity were to finally harvest the universe's practically infinite resources and cured all diseases, would we still remain the rotten barbarians we are?

Debate Room
21

In the boundless optimism of my teenage years I thought that this galaxy was thriving with intelligent life and that it was just a matter of time before they contacted us or we found evidence of them.

The older and wiser me now considers the human race to probably be the only intelligent species in this, the Milky Way galaxy. Which, if I’m right, will be ours for the taking, providing we can overcome our innate tendencies towards xenophobia, violence and resource hoarding.

The flip side of this is that such a proposition would mean that the wider universe might be teeming with intelligent life. If, on average, only one intelligent species evolves in each sufficiently large galaxy, then we are it for the Milky Way and our nearest intelligent neighbours would be 2.5 million light years away in M31 in Andromeda.

The vast distances between galaxies and the vast timescales involved in communicating with them effectively means that we will never make two-way contact with any other intelligent species. If we get lucky we might detect their presence in another galaxy, but that would be their past presence and not their current presence.

By the time we detect a signal from millions of light years away and then send a reply, many more millions of years will have elapsed before our message is received. What are the chances that the species we detected still exists? Not very high. But that’s just my opinion.

Anyway, given the fact the current estimates put the number of large galaxies in the observable universe between hundreds of billions and 1 or 2 trillion, that could be the number of intelligent species in the universe. So, in the context of my proposal, it is thriving with life.

The cruel twist in this tale is that all intelligent species are likely to live out their lives either never knowing if they are alone or knowing that they aren’t alone but being unable to communicate with each other. The speed of light and the vast distances will see to that.

Thank you,

Walter.

2 Likes
22

I believe that there is much more life (sentient and otherwise) than we currently believe.

Why?

  1. It seems very easy to copy much of the chemistry of life in the lab. The Miller-Urey experiment in the 1950s is an example. Humans have done modern chemistry for only a few hundred years (although alchemists did make important discoveries before modern chemistry, this point doesn’t change my basic argument), so what might nature accomplish in hundreds of millions of years?

  2. The Milky way galaxy is very vast with hundreds of billions of stars.

  3. We are discovering that planets are much more common than expected.

  4. I believe that life on Earth serves to demonstrate that sentience should be more common than we believe . . . perhaps because of our arrogance. I make this claim because advanced intelligence on Earth has arisen in humans . . . but what of species that I choose to call “near misses?”

To me, a near miss is an animal that can almost match us in intelligence.

As an example, please consider whales, orcas, and dolphins. Orcas may be very, very close to us in intelligence (or even more intelligent, depending upon your criteria and/or standards). Elephants certainly seem like a near miss, and even some birds may qualify as a near miss when we consider corvids that can reason, use tools, speak English, and engage in bribery.

So my point abut sentient life is that all of the near misses on Earth in a variety of unrelated animals (I intentionally excluded the apes and other simians, as they are closely related to us and I felt that this would be a kind of straw man) seems–at least to me–to indicate that sentient life should be more common rather than less.

  1. We are finding other places in our solar system which seem conducive to life. The subsurface oceans of moons around Jupiter and Saturn are an example.

Ancient Mars is another example, as it had oceans and rivers.

With so many likely places for life right in the same solar system, it seems likely that this state of affairs may be common among hundreds of billions of stars.

  1. I also believe that even if one space-traveling species evolved, then it would spread and plant colonies, which means even more inhabited worlds.

“So (to paraphrase Enrico Fermi) where are they?”

I don’t have an answer, although I believe that we just aren’t looking in the right places.

As an example, consider the whales. They are much closer and more accessible than any extra-terrestrial aliens, yet we don’t understand their languages. We can see mathematical regularities when whale songs are run through a computer, yet despite our efforts we can’t talk to them.

This is despite that fact that we have much in common with whales. We are both mammals, we are both social, and so forth.

We are almost certainly going to have less in common with aliens than cetaceans, so is it any surprise that we haven’t found a signal yet?

How much of our failure to detect extra-terrestrial intelligence is simply because our chauvanism and arrogance?

23

Maybe there are intelligent aliens and they exterminate other civilizations when they detect their radio signals; with the missile for us already launched and plowing through space at 99% the speed of light for the last 100 “Earth” years. :astonished_face:

1 Like
24

Reading the answers, it looks like God and Psychic Powers are more likely to exist than compassionate, loving, faithful, and protective humans

25

How did you calculate the probability of a deity existing?

26

you’re not Sheldon, don’t be too literal

27

It was just rhetoric then? Only one of those is objectively real, and thus is both objectively and nomologically possible, I cannot say this for any concept of deity I’ve encountered.

1 Like
28

We are the product of our evolution. Fear activates the amygdala. Love is on a higher order of functioning brokered by the pre-frontal cortex. Humans have a habit of reacting rather than responding to any given situation.

So, yeah, we’re sort of mired in caveman mode where peace love and understanding take way too much effort. Grabbing a brick to heave is much easier.

29

goodness, if you read some of the comments, they’re so cynical about humanity, you’re better off believing in magical fantasies than genuinely altruistic human beings

1 Like
30

I’m not sure deluding ourselves makes us better off, and the worst of human behaviour is evident in the religious anyway.

We can’t escape what we are, we can only strive to make life more bearable.

31

Ironically my fundamentalist teachers were super cynical about humanity (reference: total depravity of man) and when I left the faith I was for a time far more positive (people mean well and try their best to do well). I was even right to an extent because then civil society still existed.

Now in the midst of … whatever this is, I have come full circle. Same diagnosis, different cause. Not some imagined “sin nature” but just that we are evolved to survive and we are now un-gentled by the constraints and guardrails of civil society and associated social contracts. Now it’s a race to the bottom. As herd animals we are just going where we perceive enough of the other herd members ard going in terms of what is allowed / thinkable.

And no, that ain’t pretty but I left religion precisely so I could deal in reality.

32

The view that we are slaves to our biology somehow makes genuine human altruism a violation of the laws of physics. It’s as if compassion sits in the same category as psychic squids with magical teleportation

33

i was beaten by both parents as a kid for not believing in god, i watched some kids attempt to dissect a cat, i had to leave my family because my father threatened me with scissors for trying to be a woman. And I had to cut off my relationship with my boyfriend just so my family wouldn’t spread damaging rumors about him.

If you were raised in the environment I grew up in, it would be logical to say that humanity is a hellhole of hate and bigotry. But I choose not to believe that.

I may not believe in god but i sure do hope humanity isn’t so rotten as it is.

Sheldon might probably call this belief deluded, though, since I don’t really have any empirical evidence of human compassion

34

Who said we’re slaves to our biology? Also what law of physics would such a biological imperative violate?

Not at all, all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups exhibit moral behaviours, and this often includes empathy, most humans possess empathy, though how well it is nurtured must I imagine have an impact on how well we practise it. Our evolved brains give us a certain amount of autonomy, how much is open to debate. You seem to be expressing things as absolutes and this is creating false dichotomies.

This is awful, and likely leaves a lasting trauma, I am of an age when, sad to say, children could be beaten, at home and at school, it lasts in the memory to be sure. Though this has made such actions anathema to me.

Well it might be an unsurprising response, but not a rational one, again my sympathies go out to you, but the abuse you suffered is not typical. If we analysed a larger test sample I’m certain we’d find many caring loving parents, to whom such expressions of bigotry judgment, and violence towards anyone, let alone a child, would be unthinkable.

1 Like
35

Not everything is quantifiable. Please define typical abuse.

My wife had 27 years in Child Protective Services. There is no “typical abuse”. It comes in all flavors and all sizes. It doesn’t even require a parent to lay a hand on a child to qualify. It spans the gamut from neglect to murder.

One of the worst things you can do to an abuse victim is to put them on a scale, as if the abuse has to reach X point on a graph to qualify or leave an impact.

Her response to this trauma is to look for meaning and good in a world that displayed little of it to her as a child. You don’t have to be in a humvee that hits an IED to be a trauma sufferer. Society likes clean little packages that don’t question our idea of normal. The effects of repeated childhood trauma are finally gaining some traction and recognition with clinicians. It took fucking long enough…

Meaning is a human construct to explain why things happen. It’s a quantifying reaction to life events. It’s the “why” built into human consciousness. There are 35 posts in this thread arguing meaning. At this point, I would say we’ve beaten that horse into the ground.

Purpose is the “what” that gives you meaning. We are not pondering the what enough. We sit in neutral ruminating on the “why”. The “what” puts it in gear and moves you forward.

To Natasha, I would suggest focusing more on the what. Find your purpose and the meaning part will follow.

1 Like
36

IMO the more accurate response would be that humanity is capable of producing hellholes of hate and bigotry but more often than not, assuming the supports of civil society, it does not. A better world is possible but we must always strive for it and not just wish it into existence. You can admit the existence of human depravity without saying that it is universal and unaddressable. You parents can be anomalous without being unique.

But ultimately we all have to do whatever we have to do to cope, so whatever homeostasis you have acheived, I’m not interested in disturbing it. If what I said above creates a rising gorge of panic, then you’re not ready to engage with it, and likely shouldn’t.

37

I meant not typical parental behaviour of course.

38

Just so, exactly the point I was making, that the abuse described was thankfully not how most parents treat their children, of course this is also relative, since attitudes have changed substantially, as have laws (in the UK anyway) about physical punishment of children once allowed, but now considered to be abuse and made illegal. Of course parents break laws, and abuse children sadly, but such behaviour is atypical now.

39

This is the convenient and comforting perspective, but it’s magical thinking.

According to clinical studies, a reported 25% of children in the western world experience some form of abuse or neglect. 1 in 5 women and 1 in 13-17 males experience sexual abuse. Neglect is the most common form of abuse regardless of sex.

A Lancet review determined that only 6% of abuse cases were referred for investigation. The CDC estimated that 1 in 7 children face either neglect or abuse. In Child Protective Services, where my wife worked, the estimate is 2 case go unreported for every case investigated.

These statistics are based on reported incidents only. There is no way of determining the total number as under reporting is so prevalent.

Would you board an airplane that suffered from such a systemic issue?

40

So then 75% of children don’t experience abuse or neglect, and 80% of women aren’t sexually abused. Those numbers are too low, but still a healthy majority.

IDK, I never considered myself a victim of neglect or abuse but I suppose there will be a time when my parents raising me as a Christo-fasist or the fact I was spanked 3 or 4 times in my life will be considered abuse, so there isn’t just under-reporting but low standards. Still … my net impression of my parents was one of unconditional love and the fact they weren’t perfect just meant they were human.

To me the larger point is that humans are herd animals and the herd has to be constrained by the rule of law, and some kind of decent social contract for a civil society. The rule of law and the social contracts we’ve had in the past had substantial room for improvement but what we are devolving into now is far worse. Also what we had in the past here in the US was once considered – by people other than ourselves – as the proverbial “shining beacon upon a hill” such that people flocked here for the opportunities we provided. That wasn’t nothing.

We’ve always aspired to more than we achieved, but I’d rather go back to that than … whatever THIS is.

1 Like