That is a weird definition of purpose. Next you’ll say that the purpose of Homo Erectus was to be the precursor to Homo Carbonbalancencis (i.e. us.).
Is my theory [regarding the purpose of human life on earth] as outlandish as it first appears to be?
“Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn’t know how to make it, needed us!”
- George Carlin
As I pointed out earlier, the issue here is to have political parties were spending the money required for that is dismissed by many of them as they see that as a waste because in their info sphere there is no climate change concern.
Incidentally, the bacteria solution requires also to protect wetlands and estuaries.
But, many are falling for the sweet shop owners instead of the doctors when they vote. (Socrates’ Warning about uneducated populations doing democracy)
This is because, after many years of this, it is clear that one big purpose we should all aim for is to make efforts to elect politicians that should do what is needed. **
.
.
.
** [Kurzgesagt] Can YOU Fix Climate Change? That video lesson really has to be seen to the end as I have seen other posters get the wrong lesson, it is not that what we do individually is useless, we would be better electing the proper people to make a big and more effective change.
There is only one meaning of life. And that is to reproduce.
That meaning is true for pretty much ANY living organism on Earth.
Now, if you want to ask that question on a philosophic level. The answers are endless.
You know there really is a beautiful story behind creating an army of environmentalists around the world from all countries I think the social impact would be almost equal to the environmental impact
Yes reproducing is certainly one of our purposes but also just gives more opportunity for evolution so it would be in the same category with carbon in some ways
Humans are here to increase entropy. We are getting pretty good at it.
As others mentioned, that is another “just so” history/argument.
We really need to vote those candy shop owner politicians out.
BTW I pointed at Socrates for a big reason, the OP is missing a lot of philosophy to concentrate on just CO2 as our purpose, our purpose also involves to follow evidence and science unless we do want to die poor.
BILL MOYERS: All right. According to the Pew Research Center, back in 2009, a comfortable majority of Republicans accepted human evolution as a fact. But now, a plurality rejects it. So I ask you, politics can trump science, can’t it?
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Well, in a free, elected democracy, of course. You vote who you want on your school board. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to establish what’s taught in schools. That’s all relegated to the states. Hence, we speak state to state about what’s in their science textbook versus another.
And so that’s the country we’ve all sort of bought into, if you will, or born into. I think it’s a self-correcting phenomenon. Nobody wants to die, okay? So we all care about health. But above all else, among the Republicans I know, especially Republicans, nobody wants to die poor, okay?
So educated Republicans know the value of innovations in science and technology for the thriving of an economy and business and industry. They know this. If you put something that is not science in a science classroom, pass it off as science, then you are undermining an entire enterprise that was responsible for creating the wealth that we have come to take for granted in this country. So we’re already fading economically. If this, if that trend continues, some Republican is going to wake up and say, “Look guys, we got to split these two. We have to. Otherwise, we will doom ourselves to poverty.” And so I see it as a self-correcting, I don’t know when it’ll happen, but they know.
In reality, as a technology caused problem, we have the capability of avoiding dumping all that CO2 into our atmosphere as it was a sewer. And I want to see most Republicans waking up, or else, we should consider an issue like this one as yet another reason why one should never vote Republican again until they learn there is a price to pay for driving all of us into poverty.
This whole argument seems like placing the cart before the horse to me, it makes as much sense as watching a car drive off a cliff and deciding the purpose of that car was to smash into a million pieces.
You are suggesting that I am not suggesting doing anything about it that’s an unfair assumption
Could you please explain what this sentence means ?
There is no purpose to life. In order to have a purpose, someone (or something) must have given them that purpose. Every living thing is acting in their own best interest at all times. The extra CO2 is a byproduct of humans acting in their own best interest by driving cars to visit aunt Martha. Nobody is conscientiously driving to aunt Martha with the intent of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Yes, people do humanitarian acts, but they do it to feel good, which is in their own best interest.
There is no purpose to life; it is strictly random chance. Be you some random caveman, Julius Caesar, Chairman Mao, Bill from Podunk, or an amoeba, you will all end up dead. Thinking there is some grand scheme of things and that your life or death actually matters is pure hubris.
There doesn’t have to be a grand scheme of things for your life to matter. Your life almost certainly matters to somebody right now; and it can affect the lives of others in the future. The facts that this is part of no grand scheme, and that not only the individual lives affected but also the species affected are mortal, doesn’t make that untrue.
Have to think about the CO2 thing.
The primary focus of human activity, beyond basic needs, is transportation and communication. Perhaps there is some purpose to it.