Outrider’s ‘Colonization’ (in GQ) got me to really thinking (which is obvious if you’ve read his thread). We all have this desire to save humanity. But is it real or is it hardwired into our brains (ala Darwin). Outrider suggests we should be colonizing other planets in case something goes horribly wrong here. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish anyone to blown to bits or be wiped out by some new plague. But if humanity died out would it really matter.Say for example a disease swept the planet who’s only side effect was rendering everyone sterile. And, aside from the psycological distress it would cause some, everyone lived out their lives happily otherwise util the last human died. If there was no one left to morn our passing would it really be that tragic? Or is the idea that we NEED to be saved just some more of man’s egotistical we-are-the-center-of-the-universe thinking that got astronamers of the past in trouble?
I really would like some serious thought on this one.
(sorry for the redundancy for those who have read the ‘colonization thread’. I just thought this crowd might give it more thought)
I think that this is something hardwired through natural selection. People without the wish to survive simply do not make much in the way of competition to those for whom life is paramount. Therefore, people on average tend to be weighted towards the survival option.
To show good evidence that it is hardwired we’d need to show that it is a prevalent trait among our whole species.
I think if you look through history, and look through the people of today you’ll see a good number of people who don’t share this trait. They’re in it for themselves.
Now do you want to say that them being in it for themselves is hardwired too?
Not only this, but some parents of one person will be completely altruistic while their child is completely selfish. And of course a person can change from being altruistic and selfish.
Now of course anyone can say that the underlying principle is “evolution” and “biological functions” but one can say this about anything, and it really doesn’t help to answer the question.
It’s like asking someone why a statue is beautiful, and them replying because it’s made up of atoms arranged in a certain order.
(as a side note, I’d like to point out that early “astronomers” as you call them might have thought that our planet was the center of the universe, but they certainly weren’t egoistic about it. Aristotle, who probably had the most influencing ideas on the subject, said that the universe was made up of the earth, and then a number of crystal spheres surrounding it, each encompassing the other. Now this might sound very egocentric, but the key thing was that each consecutive sphere was more and more perfect… the earth was basically the crap of the universe. Just because people believed they were located in the center of the universe, didn’t mean they thought it was a good thing.)
I don’t think this argument holds true. Just because a trait is lacking in an individual, it doesn’t follow that it is not instinctive in the species. Especially with regards to human behavior, which is generally considered to be far more malleable than our counterparts in most of the animal kingdom. When people use the phrase “hardwired” they generally don’t mean we are unable to circumvent the instinct, but that it is there in all normally functioning people at some level, although it may be expressed to different degrees by individual members. Perhaps we are talking past one another, but a corollary argument to yours would be something like “We see evidence that many people kill themselves, so self-preservation cannot be an instinct.”
Becoming a parent can suddenly change “selfish” viewpoints. Having a child can make one care strongly about the future. (yes, not everyone) (yes, this can still be considered “selfish” in the sense of gene propogation)
Also, people “in it for themselves” can also care about the future if they have any pride in their own species or if they want some sense of immortality knowing that humans will still be around (this may also be hard-wired)
Homo Sapiens are the only species (wait, is Homo Sapien a species or something else? Dammit, I wish I had paid attention in Science class) that, if wiped entirely out, would have no negative effect on the rest of the world’s creatures (except maybe animals that we had already domesticated, but those don’t count…). I forget where I heard that, but I don’t have any doubts that I did hear it, or whether it’s true (but actually, slugs seem pretty worthless. I wonder if they were taken into consideration?)
Seems you need to define what is “worthy”. Is it something that is beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole? To a ecological niche? To human survival? To human’s sense of aesthetics? (for example, slugs may not suit some people’s aesthetics or play a part in the survival of our species, but you can be sure they fit into some ecological niche)
In a practical sense, humanity is here and the question is whether we will work toward our long-term survival or not. Philosophical worth might be an open question.
The universe will continue on it’s merry way with or without humans, but I think that a universe with sentient creatures in it is much more interesting than a universe without intelligent life. At the risk of quoting Carl Sagan too much…“we are a way for the universe to know itself”.