Message from @Ten-Speed_Bicycle
Discord ID: 529173790383669258
theres also the anthropromorphic principle.
its not like theres a bunch of souls waiting out somewhere, waiting to pop into existence and only an infinitecimal ammount of them get to exist in this universe.
we exist. we perceive the universe because thats just what we are.
we are life, and it makes sense that we, as life, would perceive in a universe where life happens to exist.
it doesnt matter how fuck-off levels of rare it is.
the fermi paradox says nothing.
> if aliens exist we have no way of knowing
well, I didn't say *aliens* in the regular sense don't exist. I think its likely they do, even in probably our Orion arm of the galaxy. Probably rather primitive life, certainly below hominids most likely, but still.
It does pose a problem for super-intelligent forms of life, because it might be indeed possible for them to spread at a great rate over millions upon millions upon millions of years and that in the entire history of our 3 closest galaxies we haven't seen signs of *even one* - that's a bit concerning. The age of our local galaxies is such that realistically you kind of would think that you would see something.
Eh. not really.
Do go on
@The Big Oof State your opinion
the big bang was approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
life on earth appeared around 3.5 billion years ago.
we are pretty fucking young.
Bapiro is **Transhumanist Gang**
and we are very, very, VERY early in the existence of the universe.
the only way to achieve transhumanism is through trasngenderism
But is there any reason to assume we are the *first* to reach this stage in our local group? Not at all
don't worry
im only pretending to be retarded
that gives life aproximately ten billion years to have appeared before we have.
spread across the galaxy, do whatever
it may not seem like it but
that isnt exactly long.
the fermi paradox again means nothing.
it is probably expected that we wouldnt see other advanced aliens.
Considering we can't even calculate anything realistic for the chances of life emerging to begin with (the Drake equation or whatever doesn't count), this whole point is just moot speculation tbh.
I am not in any sense *faithfully* onboard the Penrose camp or invested in him being right, if he's wrong then he is and that'll be it. I do tend to think though that (unless he has gone completely senile) his history of merit in mathematics and physics lends *some* weight behind what he's saying. That might be just in the eyes of layperson, but still.
Naturalism > Transhumanism
Also I will say that I have nothing against humans adapting themselves via technology. I just maintain we should stick to genetic/biological side of augmentation. For example I could see us greatly improving the functioning of our brains, our memory capacity, we could become photosynthesis capable too and just in all around crazy manner improve upon the species.
I just don't think we need to destroy the species in some avant garde attempt to "transcend" the human condition.
I would rather be the altruist and guarantee my children won't live in a dystopic future where they have barcodes and temporary organs
The Silicon Chip Gang is gay and needs to go away
i think
we should just continue on the path we've been on thus far
fixing existing medical conditions with whatever means we can get
there's no need to improve on anything except for life span
and that's just a matter of replacing things
and also complicated genetic decay, but who cares
remember that time the british were building a canal but then the people living near it went bankrupt so they took control of their economy then a revolt popped up to make the british stop controlling the economy so the british took control of the entire area
Good ol Times π
Yes
<:varg:521372050225627156>