Greta Thunberg

What is that meaning?

 

Unsure why you would think atheists wouldn't have a like meaning and purpose within their own lifetime.


If we get rid of the concept of God, we still possess a quest for Love, Discovery and Knowledge and I think those are among primary motivators in a continuation for humanity.

 

They don't see anything past paying their rent and not draining their bank accounts. Around half of them experience poverty at least once in their lives, and for half a century roughly half the population has been extremely dissatisfied with anything our government does, precisely because their is no pleasing some people and the money has all floated to the top. Part of the reason it is illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse, is because the state is filled with DC bureaucrats who probably won't be there in another year, and only vote if its for a tax cut. The average American now moves every five years, and their jobs are all about to be automated, when many of them have five or more careers over a lifetime.

They don't comprehend the big picture, because they were never encouraged to do anything but argue among themselves.

 

Existence itself
This is just another example of the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a noise?" philosophical debate.
Of course it does
Let me flip that question around, why does something have touched or used by humans in order to have value and meaning?

 

My answer to the tree question has always been, yes it makes a sound because an animal in the forest would have heard it.

 

Yes, but can something have value or meaning without a mind doing the evaluation? An apple has value to a worm, for example, but if it were just an apple floating around in space somewhere I don't see how it could have any sort of value.

 

Plus even if there are no animals around either, sound waves objectionably exist even without ears to catch them

 

Science blows my mind sometimes.

 

Maybe value is the wrong word, but its existence still has meaning and consequence. It still affects anything it comes into contact with for example.

Anyways I have a really concrete mind so I don't want to get too deep into the philosophy of this lol, I dont really like philosophy.
My point pertaining to this topic is that I dont like the idea that everything was put on this planet, or in space, purely for human benefit. Humans tend to take a very human centric view of the universe, but we're barely a blip in time. We've hardly existed long enough to really matter ourselves

 

Don't understand first question. Of course I think atheists want meaning in their own lifetime.

God is synonymous with Love.

Most people don't seem to care much about discovery and knowledge.

Maybe atheist was a bad choice of word. I don't feel like getting caught up in this. All I meant to convey was that I think we matter and using the universe to live, as we use Earth to live, is okay. For our own sake, we should look after our home. Dying out to protect our home is pointless.

 

At this point. But it was brought up as a real future option.

Not into open space itself certainly not. But burying stuff like radioactive waste on a lifeless moon or planet in our solar system which we can even monitor is not such a crazy idea in a future hypothetical scenario.

 

I was going to say what Tumbling did about the Apple. And what you did about the waves. The waves exist.. The "value" does not.

Keep in mind that I cannot separate my spiritual thinking from these subjects, which may be a problem.. But when I said we are all God, I also include the non thinking /feeling minerals in space. This entire universe is one thing. So yes, I do think it's fine to use it.. Loving it, caring for it, not messing it up is core to all my beliefs in how to live.

 

Welcome back Irm

 

Ah, but to take Mel's line of thought...

The moon is gradually moving away from the Earth. What happens when it spins off away from us and crashes into some other poor planet which may be home to civilization? : )

 

Eventually the Earth will become tidally locked with the Moon, meaning simply that the same hemisphere of the Earth will always face the Moon. At that point the Moon will slowly begin spiraling back towards Earth, eventually getting close enough that the Earth's gravity will tear the Moon to shreds. The remains of the Moon will form a ring around the Earth...in a couple billion years or so. It should be pretty.

 

Is that so!
Thank you. Did not know this.
I'd love to see Earth with rings. Cool.

 

If we just color coordinate all of our garbage, we can send it into orbit and form a rainbow of garbage around the Earth. Now that would be a sight to behold.

 

Way to dream big. There are no limits to human ingenuity!

 

I understand your perspective about focusing and attending to problems on Earth and agree with that. However, we tend to be a reactive species rather than proactive, case in point, attempting to rectify the Global Warming of the (primarily) past several hundred years and maybe with the World Wide Connection of the Internet things might change, but I don't think we should be bound by the things we can't fix.

If we developed space travel technology, I'm pretty sure we'll put a great deal of forethought into it, I think most all of us recognize we're dealing with an even more fragile circumstance than the Earth, and we're seeing even how fragile the ecosystem of the Earth, which we're naturally adapted to, can be. I think it would be pretty damn hard to account for all variables in a space expedition though and either we're out of our element and Entropy catches up to us so to speak and destroys us or we'll probably have to be reactive and resilient once again.

I think there might be a point where attempting to fix the Earth while waiting on this assumed evolution of our species could work to our disadvantage. For instance, if we had space travel technology but decided to wait on using it to fix all the problems on Earth for like a millenia, there is a possibility we could be wiped out by an asteroid in that timeframe.

 

I'm not arguing exploiting our solar system because everything in it is purely made for us humans to take or use. I'm arguing it because nobody, and not just that, no living being at all, is using it or gonna use it.

I get what you mean with that principle how stuff affects other stuff and even lifeless stuff exists for a reason. I just disagree with that it applies to dead (or better said lifeless) parts of space like a planet with good gravity etc. Or even if it has use we should still go about it sensibly. I mean we aren't living by this principle on earth to the max, even those who value it. Everything we do have consequences for other living things (well.. except when there aren't any )

I'm sorry, it's not ment as a cheap shot and I don't disregard everything you said.... I find it extremely lame you put it like that. It must be because you really think I said that to get at you But I just mean it 100%. You either don't get what im exactly am saying, or you don't get how planets and space works.
First of all: the rest of our solar system is likely utterly lifeless. Definitely the majority of it.
Second of all: what happens in another planet s atmosphere regarding industrial waste can not affect earth or another planet with life. Otherwise I would have big question marks myself with this hypothetical option. I don't wanna pump any waste into space so why (in earth ) put it like that.

I'm not claiming everything in space is dead (lifeless). I'm claiming that its extremely likely most of our solar system is. We can't reach other planets anyway. So for the hypothetical option only our solar system matters. Planets, moons, Pluto and floating through objects like asteroids (the latter are great for mining, not for moving industrial production to or storing waste on naturally (for one; as here your principle does apply)

I agree about the doing it correctly part at this point. But it is after all a future scenario.
But I think (and not because i crave it so much or look at it from a biased pov) I am the realist here.

I don't find this bogus thinking just to be clear. But I am convinced we as a species have the possibility to get out of this solar system in the end and think exploiting our solar system (of which most is likely lifeless AF) is an important step in that development. Even if not.. then it is IMO stupid not to use part of this lifeless stuff for our life on earth (which, if done correctly, will greatly decrease pollution on here, where there actually is a lot of life)