[cynical_sheet]

I really don't get it! Could someone please explain this to me:

- Why do humans today work so hard so that some other members of homo sapiens species can inhabit another planet? Those creatures, you, everyone you know and the entire species will be gone. Why bother to do that or anything at all? What is the end game?

- Is the decision to care about humans going to Mars made by careful & rational consideration which resulted in conclusion that members of homo sapiens species should be on Mars and that there is an objective moral duty to do so? Why pick homo sapiens species instead of some other animal species? Is it objectively true that a bio-chemical process known as a homo sapiens has intrinsic value and that everyone should work to sustain it?

[pc86]

The human race is a race of explorers, and always has been. We will go to Mars because it is there.

And if you really feel that mankind is on the same level as every other animal on the planet, despite no other species having built skyscrapers, gone to the moon, or printed their language, then that's not even really a conversation worth having.

[cynical_sheet]

You are only saying that certain bio-chemical structures reshuffle atoms in a different way, which in most cases suits their survival. You're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Also, you make it seem that there is an objective scale which measures 'levels' [of greatness, I assume]. But, there is no evidence that such a scale exists. You pick these arbitrary shuffling of molecules, like building skyscrapers or going to another rock[Mars], as great or progressive. That is the result of having an unjustified bias towards your own species. Many animals can do things humans can't do and vice versa. But, that is just a difference, not an objective superiority or inferiority.

[thescriptkiddie]

Why do these discussions always end up turning into pseudo-philosophical nihilist pity parties?

We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means. So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness? When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all. There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.

[cynical_sheet]

I don't even know why people then write papers, do research or discuss things when they could call someone dummy or label what they are talking about as 'pseudo-X'. What is 'pseudo-philosophical' about the questions asked? It is your reply that is a diatribe devoid of any substance.

  'We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means.'

Hmm, this is not cool. I sense emotional rage from the beginning. 'Greatness' or 'great' is actually well-defined. What you're writing is that many humans can use language. That's obvious. Fish can swim, birds can fly, some fungi inhabit radioactive space. It's all shuffling of particles.

  'So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness?'

It's not greatness, because greatness cannot apply to almost everything. Imagine that every email you ever get is labeled as 'important'. Well, if every is important, then labeling it as such become useless and just clutters you subject line. Same with the word 'special'. If everyone is special, the no one is. These words, like greatness apply to minority of things or otherwise they become useless. So, since shuffling atoms is done all the time everywhere, labeling that as greatness makes no sense.

  'When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all.'

Yes... and?

  'There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.'

These 3 activities and events are also shuffling of particles. So, fundamentally, there is no distinction between them in the end. Since death requires the least amount of effort, it would be the best choice for creatures looking for an easy way out.

[thescriptkiddie]

Sorry about that aggressive comment, it was intended to be humourous.

[EliRivers]

The human race is a race of explorers, and always has been.

I'm not convinced. The majority of humans are not explorers. The majority of humans like things to stay the same and like to keep doing what they've always done. The majority of humans throughout history die pretty much where they're born. Even today the majority of humans don't even move across their country. To say that humans are a race of explorers because a very small proportion of them are seems wrong.

[wavefunction]

I think that's quite an interesting conversation to have, personally. You, for example, assign a great deal of importance to things like building skyscrapers or going to the moon but given enough scale those activities are meaningless when compared to the other animals running around on this planet.

[cynical_sheet]

You made a great point. He puts building skyscrapers into a definition of greatness(an abstract term). But, why is that great and ants building they own habitats not great? They are small, so you can't expect them to build big habitats for humans.

Imagine saying that humans can't live and thrive in radioactive environment, like some fungi in Chernobyl do and therefore they are not great. Greatness means being able to live in radioactive environment.

[yoha]

Given that your comment is well constructed, you seem to be dismissed simply for not having the same point of view. I'll try to engage constructively.

------------------------------

If I read you correctly, you are raising two arguments:

1. what does an individual gains from participating in the project

2. objectively, why homo sapiens?

Regarding 2, I would say that there is not much to say aside from that we are not objective, and would prefer it if it was “us” who got to get to Mars.

I find point 1 much more interesting, especially what it says about society. Some individuals are very interested in the colonization of space, but not all are ready to directly work on it, and others are just uninterested.

However, having a structured government and a tax system allow us to make better use of individual skills, even that of those who are not directly interested in the project. Additionally, this is the kind of project where the ROI would be very long term and hard to estimate. Large scale coordination (governments and international institution) allow to make use of the "surplus workforce" that automatization is slowly making grow.

[Grishnakh]

>Given that your comment is well constructed, you seem to be dismissed simply for not having the same point of view.

That's standard operating procedure around here.

What's really bad is that, unlike Reddit where anyone has the ability to down-mod, on here only people with high karma (over 1000) can down-mod, yet in my experience you're much more likely to be down-modded to oblivion here for having an unpopular viewpoint, whereas on Reddit you'll get both down-mods and up-mods and generally stay neutral.

So if you think about it, the set-up here reinforces the "hive-mind" dynamic: because only high-karma people have down-mod ability, people who are popular get modded up more, and down-mod people they disagree with, and this creates a feedback loop which silences any unpopular or dissenting opinions. Over on Reddit, even though people complain a lot about a hive-mind mentality, anyone can create an account there in seconds and then has the same up-mod and down-mod ability as anyone else, as long as they don't get restricted or banned by moderators, so it's far more democratic. (And if they do get banned, they can just create another account in 10 seconds...)

[yoha]

I do not feel like the hivemind effect is stronger on Hacker News than on e.g. /r/programming, and definitely lower than on default subreddits.

My main gripe about Reddit is the sheer amount of low-value comments, with repeated remarks, jokes and puns trumping constructed and sourced arguments. It is obviously hard to find a good compromise.

[Grishnakh]

Well one thing you have to remember about Reddit is that every subreddit is basically a totally different forum, with different moderators, different rules to an extent, and a totally different crowd. The people who hang out on /r/Linux are not likely to be the same people who hang out on /r/Windows for instance, and there's plenty of subreddits that don't cater to tech crowds much at all. So what gets modded up or down will vary wildly from subreddit to subreddit.

But I definitely do feel the hivemind effect is greater here, at least in my personal experience (however I do not frequent /r/programming so I can't speak for that subreddit specifically). I constantly see posts down-modded here for no good reason, other than that someone doesn't like them because they go against the viewpoint of the elites here. I feel this is inevitable where you have a system where some people are "more equal" than others, as it is here. It might seem better in one way, with fewer "low-value comments" and jokes and memes and such, but it also turns into an echo chamber with misfits forced out.

[DanBC]

You say that not everybody can downvote, butyou forget to mention that nearly everyone can upvote.

A downvoted post needs someone to downvote it, and then for nobody else to upvote it.

People shouldn't downvote for disagreement, but they do. It's probably more important to upvote grey posts than complain about downvoting.

[qbrass]

>Why bother to do that or anything at all? What is the end game?

People want to leave their mark on the universe.

There's some solace in thinking about how after everyone you know and your entire species is gone, something may come across traces of your existence and give thought to who was responsible for it.

It's the same reason people draw dicks on things.

[cynical_sheet]

Thanks for replying. You make a good point.

I'm referring more to when the Sun explodes and wipes out Earth or when universe goes cold, becomes inhabited by black holes, which will also be gone - a dead universe.