Who speaks for Earth?

[jwinslow]

I'm with martins... excellent post saw (I too think that mankind is fooling itself if they claim to have progressed significantly). After reading the article, I gained very little beyond what I gathered from the quotation in the first post.

as for pondering whether we will survive:

human nature does have a survival instinct, yet it has not prevented us from racing ahead in the nuclear arms race. In fact, that instinct backfired in this case, fooling us into trying to protect our brand of humanity in the wrong fashion. It is quite possible for the wrong individual to gain access to and detonate a nuclear weapon, and set off a chain reaction of foolish nuclear retaliations. As such, if we are not considering supernatural power in this argument (which Sagan would not), I do not feel confident in saying that human nature will survive itself. I feel that we likely will survive, but do not find human nature to be a reassuring security blanket.

bkb, as for your response to saw... he likely is referencing other works by sagan, which involved certain inconsistencies. I am no expert on the matter (having only read Contact), but found his faith (which I would describe as hopeful longing) in extra terrestrial life to be very inconsistent with his unwaveringly scientific approach to christianity.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well, this is clearly not going the way I intended. I intended this Sagan quote (and more the link than the quote itself) to be used as a launching point for the larger discussion, not whether Sagan is right, not whether his remarks are outdated now some 30 years later....

Our loyalties are to the species and to the planet. We speak for earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos ancient and vast from which we spring!

I would prefer to discuss if it is appropriate to change our worldview from "Us v. Them" to "Us" Would this be a benefit for mankind. I happen to think it would be, which is one reason why I don't believe in war... or shall I say justification(s) for it.

All who have responded thus far have taken the pessamistic view on humanity. Some may say "No, I took the "realistic" view.." I'm not looking to argue about that.... But, everyone thus far has taken the position that Sagan's optimism is laughable. Why? Because he was writing with reference to the concerns of is time? (Nuclear war)

Josh - your belief in some Christian idea about God is as dreamily "faith based" as you claim is Sagan's longful wish that there be extraterrestrial intelligence. Secondly, I would say Sagan's approach to ET life was more scientific than you give credit. In fact, considering the vast amount of space out there, the more likely conclusion (Statistically) is that the Universe is teaming with life. Now, in as much as we have never been contacted in a verifiable way, Sagan (nor anyone else) cannot "prove" we are not alone, or that even if we did co-exist with some unknown life out there, we could ever contact anoter civilization in any meaningful way. But, lack of evidence does not mean the man isn't attacking the problem (or issue) scientifically, or is doing so on "faith" alone. He developes an arguement for WHY he has faith in ETs, he doesn't merely posit their existance and then ruminate on the consequences.

Regardless, your observation is wholly inconsequential to what I want to talk about here. If you prefer, I'll word it this way - Assume ETs exist... and go from there. If you are unwilling or unable to make this assumption, then I'd prefer if you left this discussion to those willing to discuss it.

Saws observation is, among otherthings, incorrect. I'm surprised he's recieved such ringing endorsement.

You say Good v. Evil is constant without offer of proof that there even are such things. (Anyone who's read my comments in the Evolution thread will know that I don't believe in such things - which of course doesn't mean I'm right, just that such an assumption, to me, is without particular weight) I ask you, what is Good? What is Evil? Who decides?

You say it's laughable to believe that the citizens of the Earth could ever co-exist.. or consider themseleves "one"... I find this belief strange and at odds with history. While I must admit that the whole of man does not consider itself "one" today, having a look at even European History alone - Germany is a good example - you see that seperate fiefdoms often decide to take up together for the common good - as precieved by those now united former enemies. Of course, you may not believe that in its essance individual countries are really just big feifdoms... In any case, reading history you can see a steady INCREASE in man's partnership with each other.... man's compulsion to care for the "common good" of it's "local group" The loca groups have increased in size over the course of history... from maybe a small collection of hunters & gatherers to towns, to some kind of organized state etc... I'd say the nature of man, in terms of growing together, is wholly unlike what you have described.

You say Good and Evil want man to survive? How so. how do human concepts... contructs .. how do they want anything? And in what way should these constructs influence life.. influence man? This is no doubt largely dependant on who you conclude gets to conclude what Good and Evil even are. My guess is you will say God - which gets us nowhere - or you'll say "We do" meaning 'the U.S' (because we're constantly fighting to figure out who gets to decide) which begs the question how does that make Good and Evil actual things, other than mere lables of hopes/desires/wants and dreams.

I will agree that manking may very well be going the same place it always has... The question is, do we have any control over that? Can we direct our future, or are we just waiting until we, in Sagans time, blow ourselves up or come out the other side... If you're not worried about it, that's fine. I'm not asking anyone to be worried about it. I'm asking if anyone wants to discuss our control over the future of mankind, is it worth discussing, and what result would we dare to acheive if we did.

 

[AKAK]

I would prefer to discuss if it is appropriate to change our worldview from "Us v. Them" to "Us" Would this be a benefit for mankind.

Of course it would... the problem is as much "them" as it is "us."

Always the problem, always will be part of the problem... but as you mention, its always moving toward "us". Anyway, everybody is worried about "them"-- check out the WTO meetings -- but that there are WTO meetings going on speaks to the concern over "us."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Of course it would... the problem is as much "them" as it is "us."

Always the problem, always will be part of the problem... but as you mention, its always moving toward "us". Anyway, everybody is worried about "them"-- check out the WTO meetings -- but that there are WTO meetings going on speaks to the concern over "us."

I'd have to agree. Which leads me to wonder, if we agree it would be beneficial to mankind, why do we spend so much time and money figuring out new and more efficient ways to kill eachother rather than how to agree with eachother?

 

[jwinslow]

I would prefer to discuss if it is appropriate to change our worldview from "Us v. Them" to "Us" Would this be a benefit for mankind. I happen to think it would be, which is one reason why I don't believe in war... or shall I say justification(s) for it.

All who have responded thus far have taken the pessamistic view on humanity. Some may say "No, I took the "realistic" view.." I'm not looking to argue about that.... But, everyone thus far has taken the position that Sagan's optimism is laughable. Why? Because he was writing with reference to the concerns of is time? (Nuclear war)

Josh - your belief in some Christian idea about God is as dreamily "faith based" as you claim is Sagan's longful wish that there be extraterrestrial intelligence. Secondly, I would say Sagan's approach to ET life was more scientific than you give credit. In fact, considering the vast amount of space out there, the more likely conclusion (Statistically) is that the Universe is teaming with life.

I think it would be very helpful and beneficial to adopt an 'us' mentality, especially in regards to nuclear war. I do not think that the risk is necessarily that outdated. It is the overbearing fear of such an outcome seems to be what has died out. I think his cry for unity is admirable, useful and necessary. I just do not feel it has a chance.

I agree my christian beliefs are "dreamily faith based" however I find them to be valid. A large portion of his life was devoted to fighting the "darkness" of religion, and I feel his method for supporting ET seems inconsistent (see below)... but I doubt we will see eye to eye on that subject.

The bolded text prevents us from debating this particular topic, Sagan's method of analyzing ET, effectively. Besides my disbelief in evolution, I do not know why the universe must contain more life simply because it is large enough. I see how it increases the capacity for ET to exist, yet I am unconvinced that that is the same as increasing the probability that ET exists. This is a fundamental difference in belief between the two of us, and is not worth exploring in this thread.

----

To answer another point... Is the US a prime example of this humanitarianism? Compared with 50 years ago, are we more united or fragmented as a country? I think you could make a strong case for both sides, tho I would lean towards fragmented.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I guess I take the opposite approach to what is being asserted here:

We have not progressed or evolved to anything greater than what we were before. Western advancement/progression over the past 300 years is most likely an abborition to human history. Slavery, tyranny of a small minority, etc will all rise and fall again. In my opinion, to believe that we are moving forward or progressing towards a united "us" requires both a naive understanding of history and an western-centric perspective.

Saws observation is, among otherthings, incorrect. I'm surprised he's recieved such ringing endorsement.

How is it? Simply saying it is incorrect doesn't make it so. Simply because you refuse or fail to recognize the existence of good and evil doesn't mean they don't exist. Why is saying that "God determines what is good and evil" get us nowhere? Simply because we can't all agree on what God has set? Well, that doesn't prove anything at all. Simply denouncing the existence of of "good and evil" gets us equally nowhere.

Like Sagan, you want to rely solely on materialistic science as the process to determine the nature of the cosmos and ourselves, and therefore enslave philosophy, theology, and all other forms of science to it (science originally meant simply "to know"). There are too many problems with this approach. First and foremost comes from Sagan's own comment: "Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths." Well, that is a self-contradictory, self-defeating statement...it is an absurdity within its own parameters and a leap-of-faith equal to any religious one within parameters outside of it.

Our loyalties are to the species and to the planet. We speak for earth. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos ancient and vast from which we spring!

Here is the biggest problem I have with the entire piece. Nobody will ever be able to speak for earth, nor will everyone's loyalties to the planet ever supercede their loyalties to greater ideals or immediate self-interest. And where does this obligation to survive and flourish originate? If there is no good or evil, then there can be no obligations.

Finally, does taking an "us" approach mean we kill, imprison, destroy, or ignore everyone who doesn't take such an approach? If not, then it is a lost cause and there will always be people who take a "me" or "we" approach.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think it would be very helpful and beneficial to adopt an 'us' mentality, especially in regards to nuclear war. I do not think that the risk is necessarily that outdated. It is the overbearing fear of such an outcome seems to be what has died out. I think his cry for unity is admirable, useful and necessary. I just do not feel it has a chance.

I agree my christian beliefs are "dreamily faith based" however I find them to be valid. A large portion of his life was devoted to fighting the "darkness" of religion, and I feel his method for supporting ET seems inconsistent (see below)... but I doubt we will see eye to eye on that subject.

The bolded text prevents us from debating this particular topic, Sagan's method of analyzing ET, effectively. Besides my disbelief in evolution, I do not know why the universe must contain more life simply because it is large enough. I see how it increases the capacity for ET to exist, yet I am unconvinced that that is the same as increasing the probability that ET exists. This is a fundamental difference in belief between the two of us, and is not worth exploring in this thread.

----

To answer another point... Is the US a prime example of this humanitarianism? Compared with 50 years ago, are we more united or fragmented as a country? I think you could make a strong case for both sides, tho I would lean towards fragmented.

Josh, thanks for your response. This is more in line what I was looking for and I appreciate that.

On this issue of the universe containing more life just because it's big enough to, allow me to say - I didn't say that the conclusion was necessary, I said that it lends support statistically to the analysis at hand. Of course, in saying that I, myself, left certain assumptions off. In short, if it is true that life began here on Earth, and is sustained owing to factors such as proximity to the Sun, if there is another place where such factors are also present, life is .. I almost said likely.. life may also have evolved there, the "requirements" for life appearing present. Given the vastness of the universe, the number of stars and the bodies circling those stars, it is statistically likely that the Earth is not unique for life. I don't know how evolution has much to do with that, other than your implied suggestion that God wouldn't want to create two (or more) beings in seprate parts of the universe.
I don't know why God would endevour to make the universe so large without any use, should we be the only life in it. I leave room for that I may simply not understand the use, as I am nothing compared to God's mind. In any case, assuming that God didn't endevour to make us hopelessly lonely in the vastness of WAY too much space, it doesn't matter if God put us here (and other beings there) or if Evolution did, or some combination therein.

 

[martinss01]

You say it's laughable to believe that the citizens of the Earth could ever co-exist.. or consider themseleves "one"... I find this belief strange and at odds with history.

in all of recorded history has mankind ever considered itself "one"? obviously we're not counting the civilized world being counted as one such as in cases of alexander the great or rome's conquest of the known world. such definitions would be based 100% off of military conquest and not out of a feeling of "one-ness" by the masses.

While I must admit that the whole of man does not consider itself "one" today, having a look at even European History alone - Germany is a good example - you see that seperate fiefdoms often decide to take up together for the common good - as precieved by those now united former enemies. Of course, you may not believe that in its essance individual countries are really just big feifdoms... In any case, reading history you can see a steady INCREASE in man's partnership with each other.... man's compulsion to care for the "common good" of it's "local group" The loca groups have increased in size over the course of history... from maybe a small collection of hunters & gatherers to towns, to some kind of organized state etc... I'd say the nature of man, in terms of growing together, is wholly unlike what you have described.

see, i think this is where you and i will disagree the most. i think when we see the same thing we are coming to radically different conclusions.

"In any case, reading history you can see a steady INCREASE in man's partnership with each other.... man's compulsion to care for the "common good" of it's "local group" The loca groups have increased in size over the course of history..."

i don't think individuals or fiefdoms in your example actually care about the "common good". people join groups for self defense and increased chances of their own success. thats increased odds of survival and gain for self, the fact that it also increases the odds for survival and gain for the rest of the group is a byproduct. not the purpose. answer me this question. is there a such thing as a selfless act and if so, prove it.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't know why God would endevour to make the universe so large without any use, should we be the only life in it. I leave room for that I may simply not understand the use, as I am nothing compared to God's mind. In any case, assuming that God didn't endevour to make us hopelessly lonely in the vastness of WAY too much space, it doesn't matter if God put us here (and other beings there) or if Evolution did, or some combination therein.

You are correct, if the assumption is correct (even though your assumption that we would be hopelessly lonely if there is nothing else is a second assumption about the first). However, if I or anyone else rejects the assumption, it is nothing more than fun mind games that take us nowhere useful.

I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet" trilogy to you, in which there are other life-forms and much, much more out there, but everything still fits within a Christian perspective. In fact, this often overlooked, science-fiction trilogy is probably the best response to Sagan out there, even though it was written before Sagan became a public figure. Speaking of Lewis, I am also reminded of one of his quotes about Freud in which he said the man's psychology was very good, but it all fell apart when he entered into philosophy (Lewis said this with the authority of being a professor of Philosopohy and English Literature at both Oxford and Cambridge)...I guess from my perspective, the same applies to Sagan, his cosmology is very good, but it all falls apart when he enters philosophy (however, I lack any such authority as Lewis held).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I guess I take the opposite approach to what is being asserted here:

We have not progressed or evolved to anything greater than what we were before. Western advancement/progression over the past 300 years is most likely an abborition to human history. Slavery, tyranny of a small minority, etc will all rise and fall again. In my opinion, to believe that we are moving forward or progressing towards a united "us" requires both a naive understanding of history and an western-centric perspective.

On what evidence do you see man get rid of an idea and then re-adopt it later, in line with slavery, for example... Or... When was slavery denounced entirely and then some group decided, after teh absence of slavery... wait a minute.. Maybe we should revist this slavery business.

In line with "good and evil" does slavery become Good because it becomes "re-adopted?" I'll discuss good and evil more momentarily.

How is it? Simply saying it is incorrect doesn't make it so. Simply because you refuse or fail to recognize the existence of good and evil doesn't mean they don't exist. Why is saying that "God determines what is good and evil" get us nowhere? Simply because we can't all agree on what God has set? Well, that doesn't prove anything at all. Simply denouncing the existence of of "good and evil" gets us equally nowhere.

I thought I explained my rationale. I thought also I said "Anyone who's read my comments in the Evolution thread will know that I don't believe in such things - which of course doesn't mean I'm right, just that such an assumption, to me, is without particular weight)" to indicate that I'm not suggesting that his arguement loses because my arguement is right with respect to Good and Evil.

Saying God determines good and evil gets us nowhere because God doesn't speak to any of us... or if he does, we throw them in the looney bin... In any case, regardless of God's determinations of Good and Evil, man remains in the dark with respect to Good and Evil.. we may make educated guesses as to what is pleasing to God, I suppose... but an educated guess is still just a guess (I realize I just undermined my arguement to josh regarding statistical probabilities... such are the ways of these kinds of topics, I guess)

My "denouncing" of Good and Evil isn't intended to get us anywhere. It's intended to show that certain assumptions about things aren't always assumable propositions. I've never seen any Good or Evil... I've only seen acts that I lable good or evil. This leads me to conclude that, in the eyes of man anyway, there simply are no such things.

Like Sagan, you want to rely solely on materialistic science as the process to determine the nature of the cosmos and ourselves, and therefore enslave philosophy, theology, and all other forms of science to it (science originally meant simply "to know").

Completely and wholly incorrect. Grad, how long have we discussed this stuff? Surely you know by now that I include ALL these things in MY view of the universe. I've "enslaved" nothing... I try and figure out WHERE and WHEN and WHY it's relevant, not reasons why it can be ignored.

There are too many problems with this approach. First and foremost comes from Sagan's own comment: "Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths." Well, that is a self-contradictory, self-defeating statement...it is an absurdity within its own parameters and a leap-of-faith equal to any religious one within parameters outside of it.

OK? I wouldn't disagree that even science is at it's core, faith. So what? I can't argue the "rules" of the universe aren't whatever they may be, I look to discern them, not to prove my preconcieved notion is inharently correct (Even in the face of my strong belief that I am, in fact, correct)

Here is the biggest problem I have with the entire piece. Nobody will ever be able to speak for earth, nor will everyone's loyalties to the planet ever supercede their loyalties to greater ideals or immediate self-interest. And where does this obligation to survive and flourish originate? If there is no good or evil, then there can be no obligations.

Well, it may well be true that no one will ever be able to speak for earth. Pessamistic view, but entirely possible. Still, nationalism supercedes people's self interest on occasion, so why can't "worldism?"

If there is no good or evil, there is still obligation. I forget what thread it was that discussed this.. probably the evo thread... in any case, the existence of good and evil says nothing regarding one's sense of obligation. Is it "good" or "evil" to pay my phone bill? I still feel obligated to... I suppose you could break it down in to things appearing as if it is a consideration of good or evil... doesn't change the fact that it's still simply a lable I decide.... I could easily convince myself it's evil to pay the phone company... hell, all I need is some half witted justification - such as thinking I didn't make a call they say I did.. and suddenly what was "evil" (not paying) becomes "good" or otherwise agreeable.

Finally, does taking an "us" approach mean we kill, imprison, destroy, or ignore everyone who doesn't take such an approach? If not, then it is a lost cause and there will always be people who take a "me" or "we" approach.

That may well be true as well. Still, you look at an organization like the united states and there is some sense of togetherness we have... you see that when we're attacked, for example. WOuld we give a shit if the "aliens" bombed Iraq? I doubt it, we'd probable shit our pants instead.... :p

Yes, there will always be dissenters to the "common position" but that doesn't change the common position being the common position. If it were the common position to view ourselves as inhabitants of Earth, instead of Americans or Frenchmen or Iraqis or Japanese, I think we'd be better off as a species... it would cost less too, I think, to treat everyone as if we're in this together... And we could put our resources elsewhere rather than try to figure out ways to destroy eachother.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And let me ask you this, Grad....

Suppose Sagan's correct that the best thing is to be united as "one" How would such a conclusion be against God's interest? I guess I don't see any religious objection here, lest the idea of religion become something divisive... which I doubt it's supposed to be (despite the fact that it has proven to be extremely divisive.) I hope you see what I'm saying... Maybe I should just leave it at, "How is being "one" contrary to God's intentions for us?" And what does your answer say about the non-benevolant nature of God.

Oh.. and every time we talk about this you recommend a CS Lewis book to me... I'll save you some time, are there any I shouldn't read? :p

 

[AKAK]

I'd have to agree. Which leads me to wonder, if we agree it would be beneficial to mankind, why do we spend so much time and money figuring out new and more efficient ways to kill eachother rather than how to agree with eachother?

Problem being that everyone needs to agree. And good and evil and all these big perspective ideas aside... the process of making people "agree" will lead to people-- for lack of a better term-- selling their agreement... thus the cost of "agreement" will -at times- lead to distrust.

I mention the WTO thing, because details of disagreement aside... the aim (whether you are in favor of this or not) is to lead to greater econmic prosperity, and greater interdependence... or... sort of an economic model of Sagan's single organism. Point is, that the more you have nations dependant on one another, the higher the cost of things like wars, etc.

So, then you come to the situation where you have a forum-- or a basis in another forum-- to address things like weapons proliferation or carbon emissions or oil supply or the law of the sea, or whatever.

(Note: I'm aware of the loss of sovereignty arguments that accompany these kinds of things-- an I think those need to be looked at, so lets not go accusing AKAK of beign an unabashed globalist-- he is a free trader though-- but all things in good time.:) )

 

[Guy Incognito]

well, the struggle of good versus evil still exists now as it has for all of mans existance. However, I just cant believe that mankind has not progressed for the better. Take something like the global slave trade. This was business as usual hundreds of years ago. Now it is considered evil. Sure, people still exist in servitude but in most cases it is frowned upon and considered an evil of the worst kind.

One testament to mans continued survival is that for 50 years we have had the capability of destroying the world several times over...and we have not come close to following through with it.

 

[Bucklion]

Looks like Carl Sagan is outlining the "One World Order" theory to me: wouldn't it be better if there were no countries, governments, religions...things that divide people. To me, Sagan was a terminal theorist, meaning he pointed out a lot of what would be ideal to happen, but realistically, won't. Sure, it would be great if we could adopt an "us" mentality...but to me, human nature has, and always will, prevent this from occuring. It's why communist governments generally don't work: one is relying on a benevolent and unambitious power structure, set up only to maintain equality amongst all the people (in theory)...which I don't think has nor will ever exist. Have we made a lot of progress? Sure we have, but human nature, at its core, doesn't change.

I'm reminded of a quote: "The meek may inherit the earth, but there's always someone waiting to kick their ass and take it away from them"

 

[Buckin' A]

Man , this has gotten way too deep for me to comprehend. I like the simple sayings, such as....

"You can't control the storm, you can only control how you react to it."