Do you care about saving the human race?


Do you care about saving the human race?  

137 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you care about saving the human race?

    • Yes
    • Maybe
    • No
    • If it effects me while i'm alive, yes, otherwise no, I don't care!


Recommended Posts

I was thinking about all of these movies centering around "Saving the human race". Finding another planet so that we can start populating it, so the human race doesn't be coming extinct.

 

I was thinking "If the human race is going to get in trouble after i'm dead and gone, couldn't really give a crap what happens to the human race. If it goes extinct it goes extinct."

 

What are your thoughts?

Well, I do care about the human race in the sense that we need to sustain ourselves to better the universe, but if we develop something that could do this job better, I wouldn't care, because it would be better for the universe.

 

Yes, but they probably won't do that by the time you die, after which you'll be dead.

Yes, but they probably won't do that by the time you die, after which you'll be dead.

Yeah, but I don't care if I die either, as long as there is still progress, whether it be by humans or beings that supersede them. I would just like to be a small part of that progress, and in that way, I guess I do care about saving the human race, but as long as we're useful to the universe.

I mean.. overall?? No.. once I die I die and hopefully I'll be a ghost.  However.. I don't want my sons life to be ###### because I don't..so in that way I do care.

 

Lets pretend the earth goes to hell after he dies too.

Lets pretend the earth goes to hell after he dies too.

Hmm.. then I'd feel bad about his kids.. so let's say.. if the whole world were to self implode.. and anyone directly related to my lineage were totally safe.. or didn't have kids then.. I care about the here and now.

The world will never end (well, in 4+ billion years yes but not before). Humans are extremely flexible in terms of survival. Mass death? Sure, but almost certainly there will always be humans. Our strength for survival is not like any other creature, the best survival tool will always be our ability to think rather then act on instinct. I would say this even if i didn't have children.

"Saving the human race" would mean continuing humanity's destruction of the earth and itself...  The planet will start regenerating with a vengeance the second there is no human left to pollute it.

 

Okay, that's not quite true, because of things like nuclear power plants and such, humans not being here would first cause more damage, eg meltdowns and such, then would slowly start to recover from the plague of humanity.  :-p

 

That's not to say that we as a part of the earth aren't TOTALLY bad, but at this point in the game, we are doing more damage than good.

 

I mean, come on, would humans care about "saving the environment" if we could figure out a way to survive without it?  Hell no.  We're selfish beings, and we are only saving the earth now because we realize we'd have no means of survival without it...  But if, say, tomorrow, we found a way to colonize another planet, within say 10 years, humanity would collectively say "###### it" and leave this world and whatever creatures remain to crumble without us...  We're parasites that feed on land until it can no longer be inhabited, and then move on and destroy new areas.  The earth will not miss us.  So why bother trying to save a species that does nothing but destroy everything it touches?

  • Like 1

Yeah, but I don't care if I die either, as long as there is still progress, whether it be by humans or beings that supersede them. I would just like to be a small part of that progress, and in that way, I guess I do care about saving the human race, but as long as we're useful to the universe.

 

Useful to the universe? When is that scheduled to begin exactly? We treat our planet like a toilet and are constantly inventing new ways to hurt each other.

 

I love life and cherish the simple pleasures every day, but honestly, the human race as a whole has largely been a failure. The only "useful" thing for the universe would be if humans became extinct. And with the way things are going, it shouldn't be long now.

 

stock-footage-self-illuminated-self-dest

  • Like 2

Quite frankly there are way too many negatives against our species as a whole right now that are working against us having a bright future. Consider:

 

- As a species, we tend to be very aggressive.

- As a species, we tend to be emotionally volatile.

- As a species, we are often too quick to judge without the proper information, and likewise we often do not act when when we should; nor do we possess the wisdom to know the difference much of the time.

- As a species, we often take (or claim) when we have no right or permission to do so.

- As a species, we are often very destructive to the nearby environment without regard for the local balance.

- As a species, we are often fearful and/or suspicious of what we do not understand, even going so far as to destroy it.

- As a species, we often gravitate toward the negative and gravitate away from the positive, usually to our detriment, because it is the easiest or most convenient path to take.

- As a species, we tend to be more concerned with comfort and distraction and material gain than with what is appropriate.

- As a species, we tend to be obsessed with how much control we have over a person, place, and thing -- and this obsession scales upward to the entire Near-Earth region of Space.

- As a species, we still tend to believe in things that do not exist, because those in positions of power or control deem it to be so or out of sheer ignorance on the part of the individual.

 

That's why, at this point in time, our future is not bright.

 

Can it change? Yes.

 

Will it change? Unlikely.

Humans will be wiped out.  I do not care about saving human race.  Earth needs a reset.  There are more morons than smart people.  There are groups of demographic that believe earth is over-crowded.  With these kinds of mentality, we should cease to evolve.  A total reset would be best.

Maybe.

 

Kind of depends on where we are at a given time in history. I would hope saving Humans now would allow for more sophisticated Humans later who actually deserve to survive (in my opinion). Overall, I dislike Humans as it stands now. We're narcissistic, arrogant and violent. I feel more compassion towards a great number of species before I ever would to Humans.

 

But....

 

I like to remain optimistic that we're just in our adolescences right now and we'll wise up to our stupidity eventually. I really hope that's true and it's certainly worth 'surviving' for. We're a relatively new species and we haven't quite worked the bugs out yet. Our intelligence is dangerous because we're not sure, yet, how to use it. I think overtime we may well be a useful resource for the Earth and its fellow inhabitants. Along the way we're certainly doing some damage and we'll rightfully need to reverse that damage to the best of our ability.

 

I also have an obvious bias as I myself am a Human.

Useful to the universe? When is that scheduled to begin exactly? We treat our planet like a toilet and are constantly inventing new ways to hurt each other.

 

I love life and cherish the simple pleasures every day, but honestly, the human race as a whole has largely been a failure. The only "useful" thing for the universe would be if humans became extinct. And with the way things are going, it shouldn't be long now.

But we should be useful to the universe. And that's what I'm saying, I would like humans to stay alive if they are going to better it. If they aren't either make a replacement, or go extinct.

  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
    • it dosnt support onprem exchange. it dosnt support mapi-calls. the views are all worse/limited. its slower. it cant see public folder calendars. we already have webmail. the list of other missing features is pretty huge but i only see it when customers call to say their email isnt working, and 9/10 times its cause they accidentality changed to outlooknew(new). Hold the line everyone!
    • yeah, this looks beautiful. Damn this winter's going to be great.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!