What should be an intelligent species main goal?

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


And? You still miss the point.

Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized! Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and will only perish through eternal peace.

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong, but I dont think survival should involve a fairy princesses day dream approach to the problem.

If you were to envision humans living a million years from now. How would they be living? How would they have survived? They wouldn’t have in your mind, right?

I do understand your point of view. A small population that lives in harmony with nature. But what about ice ages and all the things that will threaten this small population of humans?

Just one ice age may well do ya in, or at least put your numbers so low that recovery may not be possible. If there were compounding issues you would be screwed.

A large population with the technology to manage the climate would be better suited to long term survival, and that is all I have really said. Although I did put an emphasis on the fact that many species would perish if humans did indeed start to replace the natural systems. If only to see the anti human rhetoric it brought to the table.

You really think that makes me sound ridiculous?

I'll give ya my ocean farming rant would leave us high and dry and kill most ocean going species. I never meant it as some kind of solve all solution to what ails us. Words build bridges into unexplored places, and that was the point. I also wanted to show that puting non human species above human needs is wrong in terms of survival. The rest of what I said holds lots of water.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

through out all of history humankind has been it its best when it was exploring(which also included colonaisation),it stand to reason that the universe offers us untold resources and real estate.

i have often thought about why we are not doing more to achieve this.i have to say even to point why i have wondered would it not be better to get a space sorted then have the world war 3 that i view as being just a bit more likely each year that passes.

Originally posted by scooby2010
through out all of history humankind has been it its best when it was exploring(which also included colonaisation),

I take it you include: building the American economy on the shoulders of slavery; raping the planet and pillaging it's accessible regions and areas for natural resources; and destroying the entire continent of Africa?

it stand to reason that the universe offers us untold resources and real estate.

Which our representative corporate persons will treat with the same respect, regard and reverence that they offer the resources and real estate of planet Earth.





Ed for sp.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong, but I dont think survival should involve a fairy princesses day dream approach to the problem.

fairy princess day dream? me neither
if you're talking about basically infinity, then there are many approaches to what survival could mean for our species in the coming millennia, but I wouldn't put massive population growth as a priority, until we've become a type 2 or 3 civilization. In all likelihood, population growth will kill us off before it is any benefit.

If you were to envision humans living a million years from now. How would they be living? How would they have survived? They wouldn’t have in your mind, right?

well there are many many ways to envision humans a million years from now, I could envision their survival, or their demise. But if we take the approach that we need to create problems for ourselves so we can create solutions then I'd have to predict our demise.

I do understand your point of view. A small population that lives in harmony with nature. But what about ice ages and all the things that will threaten this small population of humans?

No, you don't understand my POV.
Being responsible and in control of ourselves doesn't mean we will no longer pursue the stars and the answers to all of our questions. Why would it? Why can't you envision a small yet advanced society? One that is capable of dealing with ice ages. You really think huge populations are gonna have an easier time with an ice age? It would be a disaster.

Just one ice age may well do ya in, or at least put your numbers so low that recovery may not be possible. If there were compounding issues you would be screwed.

we're obviously not picturing the same type of civilizations. Just because we control our numbers on this planet doesn't mean we'd be primitive on a technological scale.
I don't know how many more times I'll have to repeat that before it sinks in but I'll keep tryin...

A large population with the technology to manage the climate would be better suited to long term survival, and that is all I have really said. Although I did put an emphasis on the fact that many species would perish if humans did indeed start to replace the natural systems. If only to see the anti human rhetoric it brought to the table.

so you are basically contradicting yourself....I see I'm starting to sink in....

come on man..ANY population with that level of technology would be better suited to survival, but the ones with out of control growth are LESS likely to survive for a host of reasons, despite the technology. You've even indicated that yourself.

You really think that makes me sound ridiculous?

YES.

listen, think of individuals. person A is a responsible guy, he doesn't engage in shady behavior, doesn't spend too much, doesn't make reckless decisions. Person B, is the opposite. this dude sleeps with every chick he meets, never uses protection, maxed his credit cards, drives drunk, and only shows up to work when he feels like it.....

who's gonna be more successful in life? Odds are heavily in favor of person A.


Yer entire perspective is a failed case against responsibility as a species.

reply to post by MouldyCrumpet


I think you're on the right path, just few millennia too soon. First comes the horse and then the cart. Once we eradicate political boundaries and start sharing our space (equitably) we can dream up huge science projects like the type that would take us beyond our solar system.

You're favorite bad guys (TPTB) may realize this and THUS, WHY they are pushing this whole globalization thing. Who knows? Food for thought..

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

You are advocating nothing less than a coup against nature.

It is astounding to see how little it is possible to learn from history. Human beings can't even engineer their own societies and you want to engineer the planet? Where Utopianists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists and every religious leader in history have failed, Donkey Dean is going to succeed? I don't think so.

Human beings don't know everything; we certainly don't know nearly enough to embark on the mad coup you are advocating. If attempted it would go spectacularly wrong, and the main losers would be humanity.

Fortunately, your programme hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented; you'd have to establish a despotic world government first, and that isn't going to happen, despite what some fantasists who post here think.

Reply to post by MouldyCrumpet

Expansion into space. To just stay here is suicide.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by MouldyCrumpet

What should an intelligent species's main goal be? It is not a valid question.

Species don't have goals. A species is just a group of animals and plants, defined by reproductive capability. It is not a living entity and so cannot have a goal. Species arise by natural selection, a mindless process, acting on mutation, another mindless process.*

Species don't have goals. But individuals do. Usually, individual goals concern the individual, as you might expect. For most animals these goals are just things like food, sex, security and well-being. Their intermediate goals are the things they have evolved to do in order to attain their primary goals. Thus bees gather nectar and make honey, vultures rob corpses of giblets, bowerbirds build bowers and deer lock horns in mating battles.

Human beings are intelligent and complex animals whose intermediate goals are elaborate and multiform but they still concern us as individuals. However, being intelligent and having time to spare from the business of survival and reproduction, we humans sometimes bend our thoughts towards what we would like the future to be like and how we might attain this desired future. In doing so, we define goals for the human race.

These goals reflect our own values, hopes and dreams, but as we are different from one another, so the goals differ too. We can never all agree on one goal, and thus history will continue on its present path, not undirected so much as pushed in 6.7 billion directions at once. Contingency and happenstance must continue to rule our lives and that of the universe as they always have done.

And that, my friends, is a very good thing.

* * *

A few comments on posts I found interesting:

Originally posted by Tgautier13
The main goal of an intelligent species is simple: the preservation of the eco-sphere. Everything that comes after this fact could be considered trivial when stood up against this point.

This cannot possibly be the primary goal of a species. It implies a goal beyond. The goal may vary. It could be stewardship of the planet for the benefit of future humanity, or of all life upon it. This is the opposite of Donkey Dean's crazy project. but it is just as ill-conceived and equally certain to fail; or it could simply be the extinction of humanity, since the best way to protect the ecosystem is neither to eat nor breathe.

Originally posted by psychederic
If you take in consideration that "evolution" does not mean "extinction" you got less than 99.99% (of species extinct today).

This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Whether or not they gave rise to new species, extinct species are still extinct. They did not miraculously change into new species; that's not how it works.

Originally posted by ickylevel
There's no goal. Being happy can be yours.

This poster says basically the same as I, but says it more elegantly and economically. A star from me.

*Anyone who thinks they know better can stop reading my post now; I am not going to waste my breath arguing with creationists and other irrational people.

reply to post by Astyanax


hello Astyanax,

Contingency and happenstance must continue to rule our lives and that of the universe as they always have done.

Happenstance rule? Is this how you conduct your life as an individual? Do you never plan something out and see it to fruition? Hmmm...

As for contingency, I believe the OP is making a case for a contingency plan, however finds himself at a loss when his fellow humans seem to put more energy into unprovable things like Gods and petty things like money. We are the only example of things like us. Should we play the role of the helpless creature on earth and let nature someday take us away? Or should we use what nature has given us to try and derive a longterm solution?

To me it really depends on what you believe. If you believe that you will ascend into heaven then it follows logically that you would not care about any longterm goals for this plane of existence because your beliefs tell you this world is not the "true reality" and therefore expendable.

With that being said, the OP has failed to realize the lack of technological and social advances required to seriously consider any such goal/mission. Therefore the thread will won't make a good "pros and cons" discussion for another several millennia.

Hi, Scramjet76.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Happenstance rules? Is this how you conduct your life as an individual? Do you never plan something out and see it to fruition?

I am not the universe, or Earth, or the human species. I am a sentient individual, who often acts as if he had free will, could devise a plan of action and see it through to fruition. None of the other entities mentioned is sentient, so a comparison with myself does not apply.

Should we play the role of the helpless creature on earth and let nature someday take us away?

That is not a 'role'. It is the inescapable truth about ourselves, and will remain true even if we cast aside the surly bonds of Earth and straddle the cosmos in our explorations.

Or should we use what nature has given us to try and derive a longterm solution?

There is no 'should'. We will try to do this--or at least some of us will--because that is how we are designed by evolution, and in the long term we shall fail, because we are not gods. Nature will take its course, as always.

To me it really depends on what you believe.

Sadly, it depends only on nature. This is not a matter over which humans can exert any decisive control.

That being said, the OP has failed to realize the lack of technological and social advances required to seriously consider any such goal/mission. Therefore the thread will won't make a good "pros and cons" discussion for another several millennia.

Yes, indeed. It will remain a topic of interest until the human race finally becomes extinct. What it can never be is the basis for a working programme.

reply to post by Astyanax

I am not the universe, or Earth, or the human species. I am a sentient individual, who often acts as if he had free will, could devise a plan of action and see it through to fruition. None of the other entities mentioned is sentient, so a comparison with myself does not apply.

If human beings have free will or if we just 'act like it' is a moot point for this argument. We still find ourselves in a cosmic shooting gallery and expanding ourselves increases our odds of longterm survival, and thus any intelligent being or group of beings would (by definition of intelligence) consider such actions....

That is not a 'role'. It is the inescapable truth about ourselves, and will remain true even if we cast aside the surly bonds of Earth and straddle the cosmos in our explorations.

Can you better describe this inescapable truth you refer to? Are you referring to nature's ability to throw us a "curve ball" no matter how much we prepare?

There is no 'should'. We will try to do this--or at least some of us will--because that is how we are designed by evolution, and in the long term we shall fail, because we are not gods. Nature will take its course, as always.

You're right 'should' was a bad choice of words. However, while I don't believe human beings to be "gods" in the traditional sense, we aren't like anything else in nature. We have the unique ability to make ourselves "better." Does a bear make itself better? Not on it's own terms I think. A bear used to hunting for food in the arctic may be better at surviving than say, a common zoo bear. But can any bear knowingly make itself physically "better".... Smarter, faster, stronger (or however one defines better) by increasing its understanding of itself and it's environment (like human beings and science)?

Like the bear, "nature" cannot knowingly make itself better or knowingly make itself

Sadly, it depends only on nature. This is not a matter over which humans can exert any decisive control.

See, I think that is exactly the point. Humans are the only examples of beings who do exert decisive control of their environment. I.E. Beijing's "cloud seeding" to keep the rain at bay during the 2008 Summer Olympic ceremonies.

Yes, indeed. It will remain a topic of interest until the human race finally becomes extinct. What it can never be is the basis for a working programme.

You mean such an endeavor should never function as our 'prime directive' (like shelter, food, passing on genes)?

If this is what you mean then I must ask what happens if someday (through the course of cause & effect) humans find ouselves in a ultra-modern world where these things are never a second thought. To be born is to automatically have shelter, sustenance, and a means of passing on your genes. Where these things are a given like breathing air and paying taxes....

Now one may claim that I have brought a lot of "what if's" to the argument, however considering the nature of the OP's post, it seems logical to consider what a future civilzation might be right and how it might affect our fundamental thoughts as individuals.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
If human beings have free will or if we just 'act like it' is a moot point for this argument.

Not only is it moot, it isn't the point I made. I was trying to explain that only individual, sentient beings can have goals and act on them. Universes, planets and species cannot.

Can you better describe this inescapable truth you refer to?

All is mortal.

We aren't like anything else in nature. We have the unique ability to make ourselves "better."

The ability is not unique; every living thing is programmed to improve its chances of survival and reproduction by modifying its environment. Even bacteria do this.

Humans are the only examples of beings who do exert decisive control of their environment. I.E. Beijing's "cloud seeding" to keep the rain at bay during the 2008 Summer Olympic ceremonies.

Compared to the feats of environmental manipulation performed by earthworms, calcifying organisms and blue-green algae (the champs), such human attempts to alter the environment are paltry and pathetic.

You mean such an endeavor should never function as our 'prime directive' (like shelter, food, passing on genes)?

Species don't have 'prime directives'. Individuals do.

I must ask what happens if someday (through the course of cause & effect) humans find ouselves in a ultra-modern world where these things are never a second thought. To be born is to automatically have shelter, sustenance, and a means of passing on your genes. Where these things are a given like breathing air and paying taxes...

A world of free lunches. Nice to dream about, impossible in reality.