[arter4]

Not OP but, regardless of why we exist here, change is not always good.

Change simply means that something becomes something else. It isn't inherently good.

For example, now I walk with both legs, but if a car hits me, I might stay on a wheelchair for some time, which is change, but not a welcome one. Before you say "this is a strawman argument", think about technologies like "cloud seeding", which are supposed to enforce specific weather conditions by spraying certain substances in the air (not clear on the details). This sounds like a cool idea, but is it, when some studies suggest this is dangerous for the environment? Shouldn't we (as humans) think about the effects before embracing change?

So, to me, change can be good or bad (or, often, a combination). If the goal of human life was change, it should probably be "change for good". Which is complicated - what is good and what is bad? Who gets to decide? Can I know in advance? What if something is eventually to be bad, can we get back? But that's how life is, no matter the end goal: complicated.

[mewpmewp2]

I would think the main goal of humans should be to understand what is behind all that. Why do we exist. It seems to me the best way to do that is to develop tech, and I would hope quick as otherwise I personally will obviously die before finding out.

What do you think the goal is?

I just think that at some point we will find out anyway and why not quicker then? Why let 5 or 10 more generations of humans go on if at some point we might reach an answer or an endpoint of some sort.

[rglullis]

> I just think that at some point we will find out anyway and why not quicker then?

Because you and the corporations you support are making the lives of people worse now, and you are trading their wellbeing for your very minimal, personal comfort, and rationalizing it away with Pascal Wager-style of technocracy where "tech" could save you from dying.

[mewpmewp2]

Which people's lives are they making worse?