> I have to disagree. I don't like the term 'ruling', especially when
> it is placed in the context of the universe: a vast --and possibly
> infinite-- part of space. I'm pretty sure that Reilly agrees that the
> universe does not have to be ruled...especially not to the end of survival.
> The universe *is*. Humans *are*. What we decide to do within the universe
> is totally up to us, however, the universe holds astronomically <g> higher
> amounts of energy than we do. That fact cannot be ignored. We should try
> to coexist instead.
It seems to me that you're creating a duality where one really
doesn't exist. We are star children, we _are_ the universe - or at
least a small part of it. For the sake of this argument it might be
useful however to define "the universe" as that which is outside of
us.
> For us to 'rule' something, we have to have more power,
> either mentally or physically. I sincerely doubt we will enough power to
> equal the universe (let alone rule it) for many, many millenia...if ever.
As we grow we assimilate ( :-) ) more of the universe into ourselves
and become more powerful, so to my mind it is quite likely and very
desirable to have more power than the universe (universe = that which
is not us).
> It is one large error on humanity's part that we think humans are
> everything. We are not everything. There is so much out there that we have
> not yet seen. Often, our ignorance unknowingly blinds us to many
> possibilities and probabilities. Who can accurately say that "Survival can
> be the only ethic in this universe"?
Ok, I got a little carried, I'd rather say that survival can be the
only prime (or top meme) in this universe.
> How about exploration? That is an
> ethic that is within humanity; chances are, it is in many other
> extra-terrestrial species as well.
The only reason we explore is to survive.
> Survival is not an ethic, it is an
> instinct.
instinct = hardware ethic
> It is an instinct that is embedded in our subconscious mind, but
> when our mind consciously forfeits this instinct, we die. Sure, we want to
> survive in the universe, but don't we want to explore, see more, and be more
> because of new knowledge as well? I know I do.
I do to. But I see all these sub-goals I have are contributing to
the biggie which is: survive or die. We like seeking new anything
because it was (and still is) a good survival trait to have. ie. if
our ancestors didn't have a want to explore and seek new knowledge we
probably wouldn't be alive today.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen de Vries phen@wwg3.uovs.ac.za
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7827/index.html
- Challenge the guardians of the possible -