[RD] Pessimism about Mars

[Lexicus]

How modernists smear everyone who doesn't accept their lunatic agenda to rewrite reality (starting with the human race).

I mean, you do realize that most people when presented with your political views are going to refer to it as a lunatic agenda to rewrite reality tho right?

 

[El_Machinae]

Once, again, a complete non-sequiter

Interesting. I really cannot unpack why you think so

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's because other animals filled that niche. If they were to disappear, there's nothing stopping the creepy-crawlies from refilling it.

Nah, @Lexicus was right. Giant insects held their own against animals but were unable to do so after oxygen levels collapsed to what we have now. Insects have never evolved respiratory systems that can compete with animals and are in effect limited in size by the amount of oxygen in the air.

 

[Mouthwash]

Except the fact that oxygen makes up only 21% of today's atmosphere and the giant insects that existed hundreds of millions of years ago needed a 30%-oxygen atmosphere.

Large fauna exists, ergo smaller organisms can evolve to become larger. They might do it differently than the ancient bugs, but it can be done.

@ Mouthwash, I never said we'd be able to control everything but playing god is the main goal of humankind.

The point or human life is to make reality better than it is "naturally"..

Sure, but we have to remain in balance with ourselves and our environment. Modernists are too greedy and arrogant to do so.

I mean, you do realize that most people when presented with your political views are going to refer to it as a lunatic agenda to rewrite reality tho right?

Not a compelling criticism from people as brainwashed as them.

Interesting. I really cannot unpack why you think so

You keep claiming that the fact that no suffering currently exists means we shouldn't add to it. But this 'addition' is simply the expansion of normal biological existence, which includes some suffering. To maintain your view you must hold that any amount of suffering makes life not worth living.

Nah, @Lexicus was right. Giant insects held their own against animals but were unable to do so after oxygen levels collapsed to what we have now. Insects have never evolved respiratory systems that can compete with animals and are in effect limited in size by the amount of oxygen in the air.

What's to say that they can't? Reptiles might have done it better, and perhaps were inherently more suited for it. But that doesn't show that insects *could not* grow to the same sizes.

 

[Lexicus]

Nah, @Lexicus was right. Giant insects held their own against animals but were unable to do so after oxygen levels collapsed to what we have now. Insects have never evolved respiratory systems that can compete with animals and are in effect limited in size by the amount of oxygen in the air.

That was my understanding as well, that oxygen concentration put an upper limit on the size, but paradoxically this NatGeo article i just pulled actually claims the increase in size was an adaptation against the higher oxygen levels, because while adult insects can control their gas intake via opening and closing their spiracles, the larval stages cannot regulate it at all and so they had to grow bigger or die from oxygen toxicity.

What's to say that they can't? Reptiles might have done it better, and perhaps were inherently more suited for it. But that doesn't show that insects *couldn't* grow to the same sizes under selective pressure.

Yes, but all we're saying is the selective pressure would have to involve higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.

Not a compelling criticism from people as brainwashed as them.

Yes, the old "everyone is brainwashed except me" argument. I used that one a lot when I was a teenager.

 

[Narz]

@Mouthwash, what's a modernist?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What's to say that they can't? Reptiles might have done it better, and perhaps were inherently more suited for it. But that doesn't show that insects *couldn't* grow to the same sizes under selective pressure.

No one is saying they can't evolve more sophisticated gas exchange given evolutionary pressure and a few billion years. I can't tell if you're moving the goal post, being obtuse to avoid being wrong at any cost or some mix of both. Your hot take has been if we just wipe out the animals it'll happen soon enough and we're all saying it's not that simple - it's a bigger problem than simply filling ecological niches. And it's worth pointing out that insects have had billions of years to go that route and they haven't.. Sure, evoltuionary pressure from animals probably selects against it but I suspect it's more fundamental. They may not have the genes in their toolkit to make that jump, just like there will probably never be an animal that evolves chlorophil or chitin.

That was my understanding as well, that oxygen concentration put an upper limit on the size, but paradoxically this NatGeo article i just pulled actually claims the increase in size was an adaptation against the higher oxygen levels, because while adult insects can control their gas intake via opening and closing their spiracles, the larval stages cannot regulate it at all and so they had to grow bigger or die from oxygen toxicity.

That's really interesting!

 

[Lexicus]

@Mouthwash, what's a modernist?

Now that's a good question, since I assume it has nothing to do with like actual philosophical or artistic modernism.

 

[El_Machinae]

You keep claiming that the fact that no suffering currently exists means we shouldn't add to it. But this 'addition' is simply the expansion of normal biological existence, which includes some suffering. To maintain your view you must hold that any amount of suffering makes life not worth living.

Ah, you didn't mean 'non-sequiter'. That makes more sense.

First off, 'worth living' is a bit of an anthropomorphised statement. At the very least, it requires a certain level of sapience before you can ask the question 'was your life worth living?' I can ask you, I cannot ask a mouse. Not because of communication problems, but because the question doesn't make any sense

As I suspected, you are just applying a naturalistic heuristic. "What already exists, is acceptable". The problem with that heuristic is that it doesn't recognize that undeserved suffering is undeserved.

Now, you might be the type of person that doesn't mind causing undeserved suffering for your own pleasure. You might have been raised that it's acceptable to be within in a spectrum, a ratio. That you're allowed to cause a certain amount of undeserved suffering to benefit yourself. Because of the way the world works, and the fact that ecosystems existed before we did, this tendency isn't wrong. It would be impossible to survive on Earth without accepting it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

First off, 'worth living' is a bit of an anthropomorphised statement

I'd argue that 'all life is suffering and therefore we shouldn't spread it' is as well.

Edit: Completely unrelated -

I get frustrated whenever a news story comes out about some new cool rock that one of the Mars rovers found. Like, that's interesting, but it'd be a million times more interesting if the rovers could split open a rock or do one of the hundreds of simple field surveying techniques that any grad student can do. It's like trying to explore the universe with oven mitts and a blind fold on. And while it's certainly cheaper to send a rover than a geologist, it's not a million times cheaper.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, but all we're saying is the selective pressure would have to involve higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.

Why?

@Mouthwash, what's a modernist?

This is a fairly good definition:

"More common, especially in the West, are those who see it as a socially progressive trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology. From this perspective, modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end."

Essentially, the notion that we are progressing into a better state with the use of technology/politics/social engineering and can leverage that power to undo the evils of the world.

No one is saying they can't evolve more sophisticated gas exchange given evolutionary pressure and a few billion years.

Lexicus is saying that.

First off, 'worth living' is a bit of an anthropomorphised statement. At the very least, it requires a certain level of sapience before you can ask the question 'was your life worth living?'

If you're condemning certain attempts at expanding the numbers of animals on the grounds that they will suffer, you're already doing that for them.

As I suspected, you are just applying a naturalistic heuristic. "What already exists, is acceptable". The problem with that heuristic is that it doesn't recognize that undeserved suffering is undeserved.

Now, you might be the type of person that doesn't mind causing undeserved suffering for your own pleasure. You might have been raised that it's acceptable to be within in a spectrum, a ratio. That you're allowed to cause a certain amount of undeserved suffering to benefit yourself. Because of the way the world works, and the fact that ecosystems existed before we did, this tendency isn't wrong. It would be impossible to survive on Earth without accepting it.

Why is even the tiniest bit of undeserved suffering so unacceptable that we have to refrain from settling whole worlds with animals?

 

[Lexicus]

Why?

We've already explained why. Do you think we're lying about the science there or something? What exactly do you think will happen to you if you type something like "oh wow, I didn't know that, I guess I was wrong"?

Lexicus is saying that.

Not really, but @hobbsyoyo I guess I would question whether these organisms are still "insects" in any sense if they evolve a completely different method of respiration.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not really, but @hobbsyoyo I guess I would question whether these organisms are still "insects" in any sense if they evolve a completely different method of respiration.

I actually had not considered that. I am not familiar enough with the biological criteria of what constitutes an insect to guess but I suspect it would come down to something similar to the distinction between dinosaurs and birds. We now know that birds are a subset of dinosaurs that have some unique features but mostly due to tradition, we don't seem them as dinosaurs. I think it would probably be the same if insects evolved lungs or some analogue. Even then, I just don't think it's really possible as it would take far too many random mutations to develop a new gene set to allow it, ergo they're stuck with the size they are absent higher oxygen concentrations even if we wiped out the animals. In any case we're talking billions of years of evolution, not a few hundred or thousand years (i.e. human timescales) on a new planet.

 

[El_Machinae]

The change in insect size was to be a proxy for a change in sentience. Just so we know not to go in the weeds if we don't want to

.



If you're condemning certain attempts at expanding the numbers of animals on the grounds that they will suffer, you're already doing that for them.

I'm not, because the question doesn't make any sense when you're dealing with a non-sapient organism.

Unless bribed with immediate short-term pleasure, no animal will consent to pain.

With regards to any individual organism, you are somewhat using a utilitarian assumption. You are proposing that there is a certain ratio of pleasure to pain that makes the aggregate acceptable. You don't have the moral authority to make that judgment. And to nip it in the bud, neither do I.

But actualizing any specific sentience is not morally obligated, because the number of non actualized sentient organisms is best measured using Planck numbers. Every action constantly creates a bazillion non actualized intelligences. Becomes nonsensical

Why is even the tiniest bit of undeserved suffering so unacceptable that we have to refrain from settling whole worlds with animals?

Why is creating new and unnecessary undeserved suffering for your pleasure acceptable?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No one is saying they can't evolve more sophisticated gas exchange given evolutionary pressure and a few billion years. I can't tell if you're moving the goal post, being obtuse to avoid being wrong at any cost or some mix of both. Your hot take has been if we just wipe out the animals it'll happen soon enough and we're all saying it's not that simple - it's a bigger problem than simply filling ecological niches. And it's worth pointing out that insects have had billions of years to go that route and they haven't.. Sure, evoltuionary pressure from animals probably selects against it but I suspect it's more fundamental. They may not have the genes in their toolkit to make that jump, just like there will probably never be an animal that evolves chlorophil or chitin.


That's really interesting!

Not really wanting to argue with National Geographic (Good source @Lexicus!) but there are much more likely forces at work so far as controlling the size of insects. Oxygen levels have little impact on insects because of the way their circulatory system works. We have a closed loop with oxygenated blood going that way and depleted blood going this way. An insect is basically a big tank, and the heart draws blood out of the tank, runs it through oxygenation, and dumps it back in. As this reservoir "fills up" with oxygenated blood the process loses efficiency because more and more of the blood delivered to the lungs* is already oxygenated, so the total oxygen supply will asymptotically approach some "fully oxygenated" value if the bug is at rest. But if the atmospheric oxygen were so abundant that said maximum were high enough to be toxic all that is required is restlessness. A moving bug will under almost all conditions be burning oxygen faster than it can replenish it, so an intermittent run would prevent toxicity.

Bugs are designed to move very fast/powerfully in a short burst. Muscles are awash in fully oxygenated blood and dumping waste into a large reservoir of fluid. Then the bug has to rest while the wastes are expired and oxygen in the 'tank' is replenished. Get a bug and force it to keep running for an extended period and eventually it will seem like it just falls asleep in mid run.


*Term "lungs" here is representative of "the gas exchanging apparatus in a living creature." Not technically accurate per a strict definition of lungs as it is normally used in reference to vertebrates, but used for convenience.

 

[Berzerker]

tardigrades are taking over the moon

https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

tardigrades are taking over the moon

https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/

LOL...I saw that earlier and then failed to realize that this was the perfect thread to link it in. Well done.

 

[Estebonrober]

But large insects, like the size of a raccoon?



How modernists smear everyone who doesn't accept their lunatic agenda to rewrite reality (starting with the human race).

Your manipulation of that reality is reality. Human are part of nature. Your whole premise is flawed, regressive, and stupefying. You’re not alone. I just see you voice this sentiment the most. It’s just in total denial about the intelligence inherent in the machine. Our manipulation is inevitable.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not, because the question doesn't make any sense when you're dealing with a non-sapient organism.

Unless bribed with immediate short-term pleasure, no animal will consent to pain.

Why should consent be a factor for non-sapient life?

With regards to any individual organism, you are somewhat using a utilitarian assumption. You are proposing that there is a certain ratio of pleasure to pain that makes the aggregate acceptable. You don't have the moral authority to make that judgment. And to nip it in the bud, neither do I.

But actualizing any specific sentience is not morally obligated, because the number of non actualized sentient organisms is best measured using Planck numbers. Every action constantly creates a bazillion non actualized intelligences. Becomes nonsensical

No, it isn't morally obligated.

Why is creating new and unnecessary undeserved suffering for your pleasure acceptable?

Because that suffering is accompanied by their own pleasure and other things.

tardigrades are taking over the moon

https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/

Please stop the clickbait announcements.

Your manipulation of that reality is reality. Human are part of nature. Your whole premise is flawed, regressive, and stupefying. You’re not alone. I just see you voice this sentiment the most. It’s just in total denial about the intelligence inherent in the machine. Our manipulation is inevitable.

Semantics. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

 

[Berzerker]

LOL...I saw that earlier and then failed to realize that this was the perfect thread to link it in. Well done.

ty

but they're not the first to become lunar inhabitants, in the movie The Martian Matt Damon's character used his poop to fertilize his potato crop... Well, apparently the astronauts landing on the Moon didn't bring their poop back with them so the bacteria and bugs in our guts got left behind. They probably didn't survive, but as Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, life will find a way.