'Theres no scientific consensus that life is important!'

Post Reply New Topic

As has been noted by a few submissions the concept of importance requires context. Science, insofar as I know, can evaluate the necessity of something in relation to particular effects but there is no evaluation of something without some other reference. Insofar as the universe is concerned, it is so overwhelmingly huge that life on Earth can be considered of no worthwhile consideration at all. But if life on Earth is an indication that life is not only possible but a necessary consequence of some series of reactions common throughout the universe then it requires reasonable consideration.

Worthwhile to whom or what? We humble living beings consider our lives important to us (at least most of us do). We exert some effort to stay alive as long as we can.

ruveyn

Today, evidently, is "Feeling Humble Day".

Unfortunately, Futurama to the contrary, most of our entertainment media aren't broadcast that powerfully - the signals get swamped by stellar radio emissions a couple of AU out. Some of the tight-beam devices used by SETI might be detectable in distances measurable in light-years - but only if someone/something has a receiver pointed in the right direction, at the right frequency; otherwise, the radio signals are merely sweeping pointlessly through the void. (And as Dr. David Brin points out, that might be a best-case scenario. What if the signals are received by life-forms that decide they don't like us, or that they do like us - in a light cream sauce?)

Whatever the case. We can safely say that to our knowledge we are the only entities in the universe that are trying to understand the universe and so are most likely to be in a position to have an effect on the universe. As far as we know.

We are new comers at looking at the Cosmos. We have being doing thoroughly for less than 400 years and there is a lot of space and time Out There to cover. The phrase "to our knowledge" applies to rather thin gatherings.

ruveyn

Since we are the "new comers", then who are the "old timers"? How long have they been looking at the Cosmos? What is their primary language of communication for business? What is the maximum speed of their fastest spacecraft? Do they think parakeets are the dominant species of Earth?

Individuals think that their lives are important because they have evolved to think that - anyone thinking otherwise didn't have a good reason to keep themselves out of danger and was much more likely to be eliminated.

Individuals tend to think other life is important by extrapolation from their own life - the more alike another life form is, the more they can empathise with it and the more importance is attached to it (in general - ie family members over strangers, humans over dogs, dogs over insects etc.). Not sure a respect for life beyond close family ties is seen in any other animals than humans though.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think life is important. I don't think I'm particularly important to myself, but then I am quite nihilistic. I respect that other people can think their lives are important (and mine), and certainly don't want to promote a lack of respect for life that leads to suffering, because suffering is unpleasant. However, I've got nothing against something wiping out all lifeforms on the planet (or even just myself, although that might cause suffering to others), painlessly and instantaneously.

If you take current physics seriously, if Others have space craft, they go at less than the speed of light.

I am inclined to see light speed as an upper bound (not attainable btw) to the speed of any massive object.

ruveyn

Hey, my life is very important to me...

...but again, that's hardly a scientific consensus, is it?

Yes, that is a property of all matter though. However, a spacecraft could reach a destination lightyears away within the lifetime of the occupants, even human occupants, provided that it could approach the speed of light closely enough.

Me too! Yours and mine Sand!

If others have "stargates" (stable wormholes), they travel "faster than light". In any case, the level of evidence of that is as much as of aliens, although it could probably be argued that one is more likely than the other.

Unfortunately, the only way known by our physics to create an Einstein-Rosen bridge, a "wormhole" to use the popular parlance, involves a black hole, which makes taking the trip itself rather difficult - you'd need a nonrotating hole (in order to avoid being torn apart by tidal stresses), with a diameter larger than that of your craft, an unlikely set of circumstances indeed.

On the plus side, there is the theorized Alcubierre warp drive, with the minor problem that the theory so far does not allow for the possibility to see outside the warp bubble, steer, or drop back into normal travel before the bubble's preset collapse (so if it turns out there's a mass in the way, you're dead).

I keep hoping for some sort of loophole in general relativity, myself...

The more we learn about ultra strong gravitational fields, the more likely it is that General Relativity will be falsified. The same happened to Newtonian gravitation when it was discovered that Newton's law does not account for the orbit of planets like Mercury.

ruveyn

Scientifically, life isn't important. Science is only the study, the facts, and guesses based off of previous observations, therefore it lacks an opinion. But individual awareness introduces many variables, which creates subjectivity.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure." It holds true to all things in existence, including existence itself. Some of us may not value it at all while others cherish it. It's only important if someone feels it is. I can't choose to be passionate about something, and inverse is true as well.