What is the point in existing if the entirety of humanity can be wiped out in an instant?

If a massive asteroid hit the Earth and exploded it completely, who would remember humans? Why live life if it's so easy for everything to be gone in an instant? Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living?

Love of life shouldn't be superseded by fear of life or fear of not having an impact. Ego lies to us in saying that we are important. We aren't, so what? Why would that stop us from enjoying life and living by the fullest extent of what is just and good life?

>>62529 Thats a purely selfish, hedonistic perspective. I would say your perspective is what 99% of humanity in the western world believes. So yeah you are nothing special.

>>62530 I said nothing of enjoying purely bodily pleasures or anything similar nor do I care about being special.

>Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living? Why not?

>>62532 If you don't leave an impact you won't be remembered, so why keep on living?

>>62528 I'm a Christian, so this doesn't really concern me, but I did watch an interesting video about anti-natalism that suggests something I think is interesting: So, humanity is getting really close to a tipping point. We are about to become a space-faring people. Your reason to keep living is so that, the good things you do, no matter how small, are able to influence humanity positively, in order to minimise the misery and maximise the joy of the uncountably many future humans that you will never meet, and never be thanked by directly. If one is an atheist and believes in humanity's space-faring future and the population explosion that will be coupled with the energy availability from capturing stars, then yes, in a sense, everything you do is infinitely important and has infinite consequences upon the rest of humanity, both today, and across all time, for the rest of time, forever. Like a light wave, the intensity of your impact gets exponentially weaker, but it never actually fades. All the future humans can do, is be blindly thankful to those they never met that came before them, and wished to support them while they make their own contribution. Glory to Mankind!

I actually find comfort in the fact that we are doomed to die, that we'll be forgotten, and our memories, experiences, and ideas will be lost to time like the dozens of ancient civilizations that came before us. Rather than focusing on some grand idea, we should appreciate what is immediate, what is right in front of us here and now. Humans are temporal beings and our time on this earth, both as individuals and as a species, will be short. We should fill that time by enjoying the little things in life that geniunely make us happy. Hanging out with friends, falling in love, taking a stroll a sunny day etc. We should cherish the time we have and not despair because the fact that it will all be over soon is what makes our so time valuable and important. If human existence had no end it wouldn't have value, we'd be bored stiff living a repetitive meaningless existence.

I fuarrrking hate these threads what is the point of asking questions that already have an answer?

>>62535 >we'd be bored stiff living a repetitive meaningless existence. I can accept one rejecting the notion of humanity some day being able to become an interstellar, and perhaps even intergalactic species, but what of meaningful work? I mean, in the scenario where humanity has the tech necessary to be a space-faring people, they would presumably not need to do anything anymore. They could engage in recreation for the rest of their life. Yes, I'm sure the number of distractions would be great, but wouldn't there also be a great capacity for skill-development? The number-one problem I've always had with people critiquing living a really long life or living forever is that "it would be boring." Do you really think a classical musician wouldn't want to live forever, perpetually perfecting their artistry and craft? I think, if people find the thing that makes them want to strive to the highest heights of mastery, a long life would be a great gift, not a curse. I've yet to see anybody comment on the matter of longevity from the perspective of mastery. It's always about running out of pleasures to indulge in. It's like, imagine a teenager scrolling through channels on the TV and being like "there's nothing to watch. Life is worthless." It's absurd!

>>62528 Why should people's finitude define whether or not they should, or are even allowed to, live a "full life"? Most questions are answered, or at least sated, by asking the opposite.

There is no threshold of legacy, temporally or otherwise, that serves to validate existence. Existence is intrinsically valid and precious.

1. Because it is fun to live. 2. If it doesn't, then humans will very likely expand to many planets, and probably many systems, and your contributions to society will be useful.

>>62540 What the fuarrrk is that wojak?

>neurosuggesting that things have to be eternal to be meaningful

>>62528 >Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living? Because a death is absence of life. You lose this life by dying. After that you will be asked if you want to respawn and play again in a different life and location.

>>62549 I don't know what are you talking about young lad

>>62549 It's a 'certified gem' sickening I know, you wouldn't want to know the full details.

>>62533 Why do you need to be remembered?

>>62533 Again I ask: why not? What does being remembered have to do with living?

>What is the point in existing None. But I don't see a point to stopping either. Existing can be fun!

>>62528 Point is, my friend, that its worth living and try and struggle to do something good in the meanwhile, because, although its true that all our efforts can be wiped in an instant, that doesn't mean that such a catastrophe will necessarily happen, nor does it undermine the value of our efforts. They will forever have happened in the universe and nothing can ever delete that fact from the chain of events that have effectively happened in it. Every single good deed, every single good work of art, of investigation, of good management of a situation... In summary, anything of value you have done, will forever have been done, even if nobody is there to remember. On the other hand, your reasoning resembles that cowardly argument of the pessimist that, scared of making the most out of its life for the responsibility it comes with, and scared of being involved with the world we live in, says: "why live, if i will die? why instead, not die now?" But, precisely because we'll die anyway, and very soon, we have to do the most, because if we do not, we will miss our only moment of singularity, of consciousness, in this great and miraculous chain of events that is life, and the universe as a whole. You must thank that there is at least something, instead of nothing, and, compared to there being nothing, even the least of the things, even a little thing, is so much, so much more valuable. So let there be something!!!

To exist is to experience. Things exist when they have an effect on the world. Something with no effects would not cause changes, could not be measured, and would not exist. Measurements are experiences, things that affect us exist. You exist because you experience. "Why exist if at some point you will cease to exist?", according to this logic, is equivalent to: "Why experience if at some point you will cease to experience?" I would argue that if you have a limited time to experience, you might as well do so. Not experiencing is not very stimulating. Should the earth be wiped out in some cataclysmic event you might as well experience that too, why not? That argument is quite low-level. You could make a higher level argument about the nature of being a human. The way you are built determines the contents of your experience. One aspect of the human experience is the search for meaning. If you don't find joy in the sheer weirdness of being a thing at all, you could find something fun to do while you're in this little party. Maybe see if you can accomplish something you think is cool. You can experience yourself being fulfilled, maybe someone else being proud. It's also fun to talk to others about their experiences, what they like to do. But fundamentally I'm not certain how much of a 'point' there is, existence is the IS in a way. Would some force intelligently and purposely designing you to their preferred specifications provide much more of a 'point'? Why would they do that, and why do they exist? I suppose they too would experience, and are trying to fill some need in their nature.

Even if there was mass extinction with no life left no reason life cant just start all over again even if not already existing on other planets

>>62533 >If you don't leave an impact you won't be remembered That's fine. I don't really want to be remembered. There's nothing quite like the present. I don't bother with the though of a future past, if that makes any sense. I don't know why or see the reason why I should be remembered by a mass. I'm content with the fact that close friends and relatives may remember me, and I also accept that none may remember me. To me, the though of being remembered by the populus (assumin this is what you imply in your posts) is pretty scary. If you want to make big discoveries, be my guest. That is not my place/role in this world. >why should they keep living? I can't claim to speak on behalf of "they", but I can speak about my own reasons. It's of pure self-discovery. I don't know my purpose here yet and I don't think I ever will, so for now I'm describing my reason with this vague abstract term of "self-discovery". Once I'll see everything this world has to offer, there will be no reason for me to live and I'll end it right there on my own terms. Once I'll be bored of this world I'll move onto the next.

>>62528 >If a massive asteroid hit the Earth and exploded it completely, who would remember humans? You'll be dead anyway so why do you care if you'll be remembered or not? >Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living? You assume that most people want to be remembered or that they think it's the most important thing in their life. You are projecting your values on everyone else.

>>62528 In the past God was what gave our existence meaning, then God became an irrelevant concept in a world of industrial capitalism and soulless bureaucracy that stripped anything magical and sacred from the world. Then man, humanity, became the big metaconcept that structured our lives and was supposed to give us purpose and meaning. We were told to live to perfect the human race, to make it stronger, faster, or to increase individual freedom. Yet, humanism itself turned into a disgusting nightmare. The Nazis carried out the Holocaust in the name of preventing the "degeneration" of the species by people they considered inferior, while the United States, in the name of saving humanity from a brutal inhumane enemy, did everything from nuke Japan twice to carpet bomb half of South East Asia. Arguably, nothing has been more destructive than human beings search for some kind of grand idea that would replace God and give our lives some collective meaning. I say screw it! Why invoke some grand theory that will explain the "point"of our existence? Why not take pleasure in the immediate, in what's right in front of us? Our friends, the stupid drawings we make in our school books, our family, or little joys like playing the guitar? Instead of making human freedom or truth the end goal of life, why not art? I say we should treat life as a work of art like the Japanese tea master slowly composing in himself a subtle beauty through his fine clothes, soft motions, subtle taste, or the martial artist honing his body to perfection. There is no "point" to existing, rather human existence is art and we should do our best to perfect and enjoy that art!

>>62528 Build space tech to alter the flightpath of that otherwise deadly asteroid and find a way to grow humans on a terraformed planet via microbes. Fulfill your own power process by undergoing challenges and overcoming them such as foraging for your own food. Ensure a future for others as well.

>>62625 Because the greatest art has been done in tribute to God. They were doing it for God.

>>62673 >greatest art No such thing

>>62528 >If a massive asteroid hit the Earth and exploded it completely, who would remember dinosaurs? Life always find a way for life is but a complicated way to spend energy.

>>62625 I don't even have words. Who made your education? The in the philosophical theory, the Ubermench don't exist yet. It is to be created by selective breeding over the course of 1000 generations, not an existing race. Compare the fat, nutritive cereals we have with wild cereals. Compare our horses, our productive cow, our chickens to what exist in nature. The reason why we were even capable of uplifting ourselves above subsistence farming is the selection of the seeds and animals we use. The exact same can be done with humans. If we select the best of us, the ones with the most desirable traits for long enough, natural humans will look like monkeys in comparison. Such a people could cure any illness, teraform the planet, conquer the stars, they would master fusion reaction like nothing. They would create art above our imagination, their wisdom would open the door to new social organization well above ours, not to mention their physical beauty. And that's not what the axis did. Romania just fought to avoid the fate of Ukraine since the central European power wanted to leave them alone and not the Soviet Union. Finland fought for freedom. Italy fought for colonies and made racism illegal as it divided the people. The unity of Italy was recent and had to be protected. And the Germans wanted to fight for their race because it was their. They admitted their past was soykafty and many other races had greater reasons of being proud of who they are. They even offered the Zionist Jews weapons to conquer their homeland in the British protectorate. France fought to keep Alsace Loraine, it was a big deal at the moment you see. And to prevent a new colonial power from existing. GB fought to destroy the competitive German industry. And to prevent a new colonial power from existing. America fought for the supremacy in the Pacific so they could expend their colonial empire, and then to control the governments of occupied Europe. They wrote the constitution of France and created a Franc printed and controlled by the fed with that goal. Everything else is a propaganda point. > Why not take pleasure in the immediate, in what's right in front of us? Because Darwinism apply not just to organisms but also to social organizations. A group of people either struggle to earn it's place or suffer the oppression of a group that does, as this group will gain an advantage at taking over the hedonistic group. This is the human condition. But now you know there is a thing we can do so the people of the future can raise above this primal struggle. Ho, and just because it's not enough, we are suffering idiocracy. The people who have the less desirable traits for an evolved society make a lot more kids than the intellectual ones. Humanity regress.

What would be the point of humanity going extinct if it were without meaning? To ask the question suggests you see meaning in existence

>What is the point in existing if the entirety of humanity can be wiped out in an instant? The acrostronomic unlikeliness of this ever happening kind of renders it a pointless worry.

>> 63680 Yet people worry about it. People worry about many things that aren't real. I can't help but think there is something more. Some deeper reason behind these fears.

>What is the point in existing if the entirety of humanity can be wiped out in an instant? What is the point of you existing if you can suffer a heart attack in the middle of your day, so why bother waking up from the bed? >If a massive asteroid hit the Earth and exploded it completely, who would remember humans? We don't need to go that far. When you weren't born, the entirety of humanity didn't bother you a single bit. But somehow when you started existing(your ego), and you started worrying about the oblivion that might or might not happen. If "we" get wiped out, you won't be here to complain or be sad about what happened. The definitive answer for that might depend on your religion/philosophy/etc, but rather than say there is no point in existing, you should say Exisiting is the point. >Why live life if it's so easy for everything to be gone in an instant? That's the very essence of life. So I think you should give more value to it rather than have such view. >Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living? It's more about life having a impact on you than you doing a impact on Earth.

>>62533 I don't need to be remembered since my existence isn't over when I leave the material world.

>>62753 Absolutely based, at least regarding eugenics. Our species seems to place dear importance on maximising human productivity and value. Yet our approach to selecting the next generation is completely incongruent with the rest of our efforts.

>>62528 >Not spending every waking moment of existence thinking of new ways to wipe out humanity in an instant

>>64061 Are you me from another reality? We should suck each others dicks sometime. >What is the point in existing if the entirety of humanity can be wiped out in an instant? What is the point in existing ...? I think the above boils down to the bellow. Its a moot point to be honest, everything can stop existing at any moment, theres a 1000 things that could happen, solar flare, volcanic erruption or any number of other things. >Most people don't leave a big impact on Earth, why should they keep living? Life isnt something that you keep doing, its something that keeps happening. Most people are stupid and only eat soykaf fuarrrk sleep, they dont even have a conception of anything outside themselfs as relevant.

>>62528 Accept this fact and live a full life in spite of it. I will die, my bones will turn to ash, the sun will devour the earth and all I ever helped to create but before then I will spend my time learning about all the things I'm curious about, stand in awe at the incredible beauty of nature, build whatever mad ideas inspire me, see how far I can push myself physically and mentally and engage in the most human of human acts and raise more humans in a world that's just a little better off than when I was raised. If there is no point to it all, why not accept the absurdity of existence and live the fullest life you can?

>If a massive asteroid hit the Earth and exploded it completely That's impossible. Also, if an asteroid were to find itself in a collision course with Earth we will just change its course. We can do that now. The only thing that has a shot at destroying us is a near gamma ray burst but the possibility of such a thing is incredibly low and it still wouldn't wipe out all of the humanity. We are just that resilient. Accept it an be proud of our species and its accomplishments.

>>66063 > Also, if an asteroid were to find itself in a collision course with Earth we will just change its course. We can do that now. LOL any asteroid we could actually confidently deflect would have to be tiny and therefore insignificant. Maybe a city destroyer if its aimed just right. Anything that posed a real threat on a continental/planetary level would be way out of our league. There are fewer nukes today and smaller ones than historically, and to orbit launch ability may be going up but its not great. If a long period comet was discovered zipping right at nyc its pretty good odds the best solution would be to build a wall so they can't escape and pray that it strikes true. Otherwise, sure ok maybe we can solve that if we get like a 10+ year warning and its not too big.

>>66105 There are a couple problems with this: 1) we don't actually get a super long warning except for long-period comets. There are other long-period objects or even hyperbolic objects that do not emit so much light, and some stuff in the neighborhood we havent managed to see on a telescope yet. So the amount of warning we would get for a planet killer may be very small (a few years). For a city killer, we might not even see it coming. 2) asteroids don't have to be very large to have really massive impacts. The Tunguska event is estimated to have been caused by an object 50-60 meters in diameter; this is easily small enough to deflect or maybe even vaporize with only a small nuclear warhead. The hard part is going to be getting those weapons into a position where they can actually hit the thing, because most deep space objects are going very very fast relative to earth. 3) in the event that New York were going to be hit with an asteroid, they'd throw a couple billion dollars of funding NASA's way and probably the technology to do this would be finished within a year or two.

>>62540 This, it's like they have a million ways of asking the same stupid questions. >Why? BECAUSE fuarrrk YOU THAT'S WHY! >>64061 Based >>66110 >Boo hoo an asteroid exists out in space somewhere Grow up! I'm the asteroid and I fuarrrked your mom! And to everyone saying "just live in the moment bro", you're pathetic!

>>66110 >we don't actually get a super long warning except for long-period comets. I'm not sure you phrased this right but whatever. Long period comets are tricky because they can be hard to detect like the hyperbolic objects you talk about. By the time they're close enough to see, they're in the sun, and if its their first go round in 10k years (if ever) then we've no way to predict. Might just come out and bonk us tomorrow. The easy to predict ones are NEOs because they keep swinging round the neighborhood, also easiest to intercept because the orbits are nicer, hyperbolic things are tricky but seem rare. 2) asteroids don't have to be very large to have really massive impacts. calling tunguska massive is a joke. we've blown up bigger nukes than that. If tunguska had hit over the ocean its possible nobody would have noticed. If it'd not airburst it might have made a cool tourist attraction like Barringer. If it had gone smack dab right on a city its possible it would have rivalled some of the intentional urban bombings of the 20th century. If we saw a neo that looked like tunguska there's a good chance we could blow it up and get a cool meteor shower. Or we might just not and that would most likely be fine, too. >most deep space objects are going very fast sure but if you're nuking it you don't need to do a real rendezvous just a close flyby/collision. Still not a trivial problem indeed, orbits can be tricky. >3) in the event that New York were going to be hit with an asteroid, they'd throw a couple billion dollars of funding NASA's way and probably the technology to do this would be finished within a year or two. OK, say the tech to stop the thing will be ready in a year or two. Lucky you the asteroid doesnt get here for three. Best launch opportunity was last week, but maybe thats ok you have the launch capacity to go at a bad time. Two years later you launch, not great opportunity but adequate (would have gone at a better chance a couple weeks earlier but Florida weather wasn't good and then the moon got in the way) for a flyby nuke strike six months before impact. Flyby happens, but your 30 year old nuke fizzles. I guess some simulation at los alamos didn't get it quite right. But not all is lost because you still have 6 months to buy all the NYC memorabilia you want. That or maybe one of a whole bunch of other systems fail, some software confusion with nautical miles being interpreted as km, a diode installed backwards, or some mysterious problem no one quite gets. Such things have been known to happen...

>>66118 comets can be seen pretty far out. We'd have at least a year for a big one, probably. >calling tunguska massive is a joke. we've blown up bigger nukes than that. it was massive enough to kill millions of people if it hits a densely populated area, therefore it was massive. >sure but if you're nuking it you don't need to do a real rendezvous just a close flyby/collision. I'm dubious about a flyby. In space almost the entire energy of the bomb is being emitted as EM radiation and radiating in all directions, so if you're a few kilometers off you'll probably get nothing. But, if you're close enough to it you can use RADAR, so at least a head-on collision could be effected pretty easily. >Flyby happens, but your 30 year old nuke fizzles. Is there any reason at all to expect this to happen? They're not exactly the most complicated devices, and the ones still in service get regular maintenance. We know that ones built way back in the 50s were still going off reliably in the 90s.

>>66120 >We'd have at least a year for a big one, probably. glad you think so. >it was massive enough to kill millions of people if it hits a densely populated area, therefore it was massive. lol ok our definitions differ. OP is clearly talking massive on a totally different scale than you are. Something about the entire earth exploding I think? Worth pointing out that a single bullet can kill a surprising number of people if you line all their hearts and ribs up just right. Maybe Tunguska could have killed millions, but more likely it goes off over sparsley populated areas like it did. Most of the earth's surface is ocean, and most of that which isn't is the middle of nowhere. As it is, city killer type impacts seem like a less than 1 in a century type of affair, and chances of hitting a big city are way less than 1/100. Odds of a city getting destroyed in this fashion in the next 10k years are imho not that high. >I'm dubious about a flyby fair criticisms I'm just making up a dumb mission outline don't take it too seriously. >Is there any reason at all to expect this to happen? I'll have to recheck how old the nukes getting tested at various times were but my impression hasnt been that too many tests were done with decades old nukes. Yes they do get maintainance and yes they're pretty simple devices, but spacecraft have a lot of subtle difficulties so its reasonable to worry about dumb little problems. Furthermore the Nuke Question is real, blocks of radioactive metal are peculiar things that behave in strange ways and are feindish to work with. A lot of study has gone into trying to figure out what maintainance needs to look like to keep em working but if it was done wrong, which is possible, maybe they wont. Hasn't been a real test outside of North Korea since the 90s. Personally if I was in charge of a project like this I'd want to test every part of it as much as possible, and if I'm depending on nukes to work then I'd want to test a couple out down here just to be sure. Its possible that would happen, but I'm a cynic and I like to make fun.

>>62528 You have find a reason.

the way i think about it is... imagine you're playing a video game during a bad storm. the power could get cut at any time, and the game will end. but does that stop you from playing? the game is fun, and it's something to do, and knowing it can end at any point relieves you of any real pressure about the things you do or the choices you make. so, you play for as long as the whims of the universe will let you.