[edavison1]

Eh. I dunno whether I am just optimistic, but let's try to remember that certainty isn't part of the scientific vocabulary; almost by definition science never seeks to provide a final answer on any subject and remains open to further inquiry/falsifiability.

So. I believe one of the reasons humankind is so awesome is that we have the capacity to be more than just a note in your natural symphony; we are constantly changing, creating and inventing— and I think it's entirely up to us whether we continue to flourish. Not to get all mystical, but perhaps in time the notion that we are 'the reason the music exists' will not seem super far-fetched. I guess I just think that human consciousness is so unique and cool that it is worth going to great lengths to preserve it, and to hell with what's considered 'natural'.

[lutusp]

> Eh. I dunno whether I am just optimistic, but let's try to remember that certainty isn't part of the scientific vocabulary; almost by definition science never seeks to provide a final answer on any subject and remains open to further inquiry/falsifiability.

Yes, that's true, but my point isn't a scientific one, it's a mathematical one. Given enough time, the human species will disappear. It's an equation, not a theory open to empirical test -- but it's certainly supported by evidence from other species.

> ... and I think it's entirely up to us whether we continue to flourish.

This denies a role for nature, from which we sprang. Given that, if we "thrive" and are not outcompeted by some other species, then instead the form of our thriving will be to evolve to the point where present-day people wouldn't be able to recognize the outcome as human.

I say this based on the copious evidence buried in layers of rock that records billions of years of evolution of countless species, of which we are one.

> I guess I just think that human consciousness is so unique and cool that it is worth going to great lengths to preserve it, and to hell with what's considered 'natural'.

More New Age fantasy. When we try to improve on nature, because of our intellectual limitations we instead become nature's obedient servants.

[edavison1]

Yeah I mean as long as there's historical continuity between our civilization and these hypothetical future human-like things, I'm totally on board. Not committed to humans as they are in 2014 sticking around forever. I think any disagreement between these views rests mainly on what we mean when we say extinction event. I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

[lutusp]

> I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

But it is a New Age fantasy. A million years from now, no matter what course natural selection takes, any surviving species will almost certainly be so unlike us that we would not recognize them as even remotely kindred spirits.

I chose a million years to avoid a discussion about how long it might take for natural selection to naturally eliminate us entirely. In that future time, there might be super-intelligent species who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect, or there might be simple-minded cockroaches. Or (who knows) there might be cockroaches who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect. :)

There's a natural tendency to think of us as a permanent or special fixture of the earthly landscape. But that has no basis in reality -- we're a transient form with no special significance. To me, our relative insignificance makes who we are, and what we can do, worthy of reflection and a certain amount of gratitude toward the random workings of nature for creating us in the first place.