Re: Empirics and Life and Faith

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

John M, (do we still need your M?)

I think there are many meanings to life, as many
as their are life forms, and same for the ways to
save the world. I don't imagine or model humans
as much based on our current reality (maybe 95%
destructive) as much as I see our great potential.
Much the same for science - in the ideal or potential
it is fully democratic (science never says "It is
written" or "This truth came from on high" or "You
must believe this" - instead it says "see for yourself,
all have equal access to truth") while in the real it
is corrupt, for sale, hierarchical, all about secure
"ego niches" for faculty and admin, as Harold
Morowitz said. Still, I don't give up on science. In
same vein, I don't give up on humans or life. And
in our ideal or potential, we are integral with life
and have more to offer than we take, consume,
degrade. A few examples - only humans can help
get life off planet, which must be done if it is to
continue life as in open-ended evolution. Also, for
now, only humans have the high-tech to harness
life legacy and "nest egg", capital saved up of
fossil fuels. These go together - if we are to live for
Life Itself, have a mission and contribute to life as
an integral whole, we ought to use the fossil fuels
to get off planet. Another good use (with good based
on good for life as a whole) is to use fossil fuels to
wean ourselves from fossil fuels, convert to
renewable energy. To some degree we do, and thus
some of the evidence for my faith. Not that I really
need evidence (I am hopeless optimist and can run
on zero evidence) but evidence helps for talking to
scientists. :-)

We have so much to offer. We are just in an
immature phase right now. Give us some time and
work and love and learning and we may yet pull
this one out of the fire (i.e. come from behind
victory, snatch victory from the jaws of global
socio-ecological defeat, etc. A few idioms about
underdogs winning despite the odds and bad
circumstantial evidence).

Dan

John M wrote:
> Dear Dan,
> Are you sure that there is a 'meaning' to life? Or you just talk about OUR
> ideas, how WE think about it?
> Then again:
> "Saving the world"
> for what? for our species' survival/success? that is highly
> counterproductive for "the world". Gaia will retort.
> With all that stupidity what our overenlarged brain instigated we are on an
> impending suicidal course. Is the 20m people of Mexico City an upper limit?
> I imagined the amount of human waste to be disposed of there.
> Mao taught: what the world needs is a "good(?)" nuke war, the 10% survivers
> will build a nice commi world.
> (No ref, just hearsay).
>
> John M