Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by reggie_jax, Jan 3, 2012.
what happens to them when it does
Radium and Reggie do you guys believe in evolution in that all life evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago ?
so wait, no bugs, no rain...but, they ate plants...so, they pooped, and pooped a lot, with nothing to wash it away or decompose it...
and wait again...there was no death, yet plants were being eaten, and by proxy, dying
what the fx up with dat? eh?
we don't see more being created because we're not around long enough to see it happen, even in the entirety of recording history, not long enough...what the fuck don't you assholes understand about the time that complete species evolution takes?
oh, yea...everything, nevermind
what happens to who? i don't understand the question.
that is what the DNA would indicate.
the animals from your example
what would happen to them
they would die. except the ones who were smart enough to colonize space.
but how would they do that
you mean how will they die or how could we colonize space?
in regard to the former: supposedly the sun's energy output is gradually increasing and will make earth uninhabitable long before the sun ever burns out. of course, that's assuming we make it that long. there's any number of ways that life on earth could end before that.
in regard to the latter: dunno.
then those animals would have to create technology to stop that from happening.
they would need to create a society that has an ability to effectively produce an intellectual class. that intellectual class would have to learn how to cooperate and share knowledge together. to do that they would need to have a society that is conducive to that kind of process. they would need to protect agents in that society from abuse, assault, neglect, and poor health - and they would ultimately need to expose them to systems that promote emotional, intellectual, and physical well being.
so i ask again: if they dont do these things what would happen to them
common ancestor is correct
semi-on topic though...i think the abiogenesis process would have, logically, yielded multiple forms of the initial "life"... most likely the first thing that would be considered living, actually died out, probably didn't self replicate, then the dna bearing organism happened to happen and that became the common ancestor...but, given that there were nearly infinite oppurtunities for the abiotic "primordial ooze" to interact with each other, it's also logical that multiple dna bearing organisms sprung up around the same time, and self replicated until the mutation that allowed them to mate/eat eachother "consumption mating". that would prevent "incest retardation" through mutual mutations and the like
just a thought i had recently, don't know if there's even a theory about it, this is strictly thought and speculation
You are right, just a thought.
aww, thanks coup, i think, unless you meant like me thinking i am right is just a thought, in that case, ya know...i won't hate, that's actually pretty clever, so, thanks either way...
i think she's saying like, if the earth will be gone, and the animals that're continually evolving into the infinite impossibilities don't live in space, then they would be gone, and therefore put a finite number on the species amount...but, here's my thoughts...
this earth isn't the only place to have these infinite possibilities, eventually, through universal time, a planet with the right conditions for abiogenesis will come to exist, and some shit will come to life, and then that planet will fade, so and and so forth...*there can be more than one planet in the universe habitablizing at once....or even none
then you say...so then, what happens at the time of the "big freeze" of inevitable black hole domination, and the universe is incapable of producing a habitable zone?
I say, that theory is wrong....sorta
(credit to coup for this analogy)
just as a car traveling west in oklahoma didn't necessarily start coming from virginia, and won't necessarily end up in california, and the moon didn't necessarily come off the earth because it's currently getting slightly farther away...
the universe is not necessarily expanding forever because it is currently...
and you say...but then, wouldn't that mean that the universe didn't necessarily come from a central location's explosion, making the big bang fallible?
I say, maybe...unless you take into consideration that gravity is the ONLY true constant force in the known universe, whether it's dark matter or whatever, eventually, once everything hits a "big freeze" it has lost it's initial energy, through entropy, from the blast (what blast you say...wait), the constant of gravity will remain, and collect all the matter, no matter what kind, back together, there'll be a bunch of black holes collecting together, and then, one there are two left, that amount of mass and pressure will eliminate the atomic bonds, and bring the universe back to it's state of subatomic "bangability" (feel free to use that phrase however you choose, it's fun to say)
and this cycle happens, forever, and forever, shit, sometimes, a universe might never produce a habitable zone, we might just as likely be on the 34th, or 623rd, as the first bang...
*there could even be whole universal lifespans that have no habitable planets on them
this all makes such logical, beautiful sense to me, i imagine once the full (dark and normal) mass of the universe is observed and calculated, there will be an equation showing that a single black hole of that magnitude would create enough force to account for the big bangs
*but, it also leaves out the reason for the initial bang...and i still, even with all this crazy science, gotta give it up to some kind of higher power
and that higher power split, and it's consciousness is now in them form of fractalized matter (the universe) and fractalized spirits
i think i see where you're going now. you're using this as a platform to launch a sort of objective reasoning for morality?
i think that with or without this platform, such a reasoning already exists. even if we don't outlive the sun our society already depends on a sort of moral conduct. yet the morality itself is entirely arbitrary. it's a means to an end. a middleman between humanity and a goal; never the goal in and of itself. that is why i assert that evil does not exist.
as an aside: what happens to those animals when every sun in the universe dies out?
most material i've read on the subject suggests the exact same thing you're saying. the oldest common ancestor is not necessarily the first life. and there's no saying that new life hasn't developed since; it's just very likely that such life would be promptly eaten by bacteria.
you didnt answer the question
thank you for condensing your stance for me
can you define this term: goal
does humanity (life) have an ultimate goal?
they'd be destroyed by their own thanatos maxing out to what is its ultimate conclusion: death
only one thing could ultimately stop that: eros (or life enhancing systems: morality)
i thought i already did answer it, assuming the question was what will happen to us if we don't conquer space.
i'll discuss the assertions you make as to what will be necessary in order for us to make that happen, if that's what i didn't answer:
an intellectual class will certainly be necessary, and that class will indeed need to be able to share information. yet the jump from this to a society where everyone cooperates and people are protected from all sorts of abuse seems to be completely unjustified. why is that necessary? the underlying glorification of 'eros' as the way to make this goal a reality is equally unfounded. one need look no further than the precedents that have already been set throughout human history: warfare and conflict has always contributed a great amount to technological progress. this natural antagonism has spurred competition which has fueled the engine of progress. it is this very wartime effort that brought us to the moon - arguably the major turning point where our society became space bound.
an ultimate goal would be survival. but the context in which i was using the word had the goal as a sort of vague 'maintenance' of human society, which is a sort of sub-goal of survival.
and how would it manage to do that?
humans that are psychologically/physically abused and neglected can't contribute effectively to society and ultimately to its intellectual class and the decisions that it must ultimately try to make about humanity. they get turned into wasted human life and this is ultimately wrong and destructive to humanity. every human life that is wasted could have been the very life that may have saved it and its future. every human life is important to humanity.
you're absolutely wrong
humans need love and they need it to avoid suffering and to avoid becoming agents of thanatos themselves. love is an absolute necessity to human health and growth.
what ultimately happens to a human who is never loved/can't love?
some of the technology that has been created by war is good to humanity. that is, its ultimately a life-enhancing agent to humanity; an agent of eros.
but i would argue that war wasnt really needed to make it. technology can be made for the sake of technology too. to say that it requires war just to exist is wrong eg your example we had to be at war just to have a reason to go to the moon.
i just want to say please be aware of yourself that as a way to hold on to your relativistic stance, you are starting to argue increasingly in favor towards things like war and against things like love. i wanted to say that because you might be starting to max out to conclusions you may not have started out trying to.
Separate names with a comma.