Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 571 days ago
> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time

Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life.

Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.
2 comments
giraffe_lady 571 days ago
The problem with manifest destiny was that based on the perceived exceptional character or origin of a specific group, their expansion was considered both just and inevitable.

Reread Mr Bright's post I'm responding to and hopefully it's clear why I find it alarming. Do you think he'd want to stop if we discover life out there? What mechanism would there even be to stop once there's an economic incentive not to?

There are some abominations in our history and it's our responsibility to sincerely repent and learn to avoid repeating them. So far we're simply saying it's different this time.

link
vacuity 571 days ago
Sure, if humans will not needlessly harm any sapient life, I think there would be a lot less reasonable complaints around. Whether on Mars or on Earth, let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest and "might makes right". Sounds to me like we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?
link
JumpCrisscross 571 days ago
> let's do that, shall we? Oh wait...now I see the longstanding problem with conquest

That it's irrelevant to this conversation? Conquest means conquering. To conquer means to take possession of a foreign land by force [1]. There are no Moon Men our rovers are waging war with. Lunar colonisation is manifest destiny in the way my dog peeing on a fence post is. (Practically speaking, less so.)

> we'll have an acceptable Mars civilization...for a bit. Or is it fine if they aren't pre-existing life?

Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conqu...

link
vacuity 571 days ago
> Conquest means conquering.

I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved.

> Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.

You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.

link
JumpCrisscross 571 days ago
> whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from

Maybe, maybe not. I question the relevance of a moot hypothetical.

> seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine

I'm saying if there is nothing living--let alone sapient--is harmed, it's not analogous to Manifest Destiny in a fundamental way. We have no cultural memory of colonising terra nova. So we're analogising to conquest, which I'm arguing is reductive.

This is closer to the first people to leave the African continent. Or first humans to get on boats and colonise North America and the Pacific Islands. Something motivated those people into the unknown, and while an element of that is preserved in Manifest Destiny, it's--I'd argue--in a corrupted form.

link