There is no Scientific Consensus that Life is Important

[Nokternal]

There is no scientific consensus that life is important.

I believe that it isn't important to anything but the beings living it. If all life on Earth were to suddenly be snuffed out by some unimaginable force, the consequences would actually be quite small. The universe is infinitely and incomprehensibly vast, and would go on just like it always has with or without life on one tiny insignificant planet such as Earth.

Here is a little about me to explain my views and why I have them. I am both an existential nihilist and a moral nihilist.

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. It can stem from scientific analysis showing that only the physical laws contributed to our existence. With respect to the universe, a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and is not likely to change in the totality of existence. Quite simply, nihilists like me in this respect believe that the only purpose in life is to live it.

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false.

So, what do you guys think? Is life actually important to the universe? Or is life only important to the beings actually living it at the moment? If life were to suddenly end all together, would it make any cosmic difference or would it just be "business as usual" for the rest of the old universe?

Is life important to the universe, or only important to you and me?


Lets not turn this into a flame war, please. I'd like an open and honest discussion and or debate about the topic. I am not out to change any ones views here, I would just like peoples honest opinion on the topic. Your point of view is welcome, regardless of what it may be, as long as you act mature.
And remember, criticism and or disagreeing are not the same as flaming, as long as you back your self up in a mature manner :thumbsup:

 

[DJCowboy]

In the universe sense, of course we are extremely insignificant and if we were wiped out right now, nothing in the universe would change. But in my eyes, I'd be pretty fucking pissed and that's significant enough for me!

Creating life is also a part of the universe. Our solar system, our planet, even us as humans are remnants of dead stars from long ago. They just keep on going. I also don't believe we're the only forms of life in the universe, we just might be one of the rare circumstances where a species can actually comprehend a discussion such as this

 

[PirateKing]

Does "cogito ergo sum" still bear relevance to this arguement?

 

[Nokternal]

Does "cogito ergo sum" still bear relevance to this arguement?

In short, no.
The simple meaning of the Latin phrase cogito ergo sum is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking).

We are already assuming that life does in fact exist. The question at hand is not whether it exists or not, but whether or not it matters or is important.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I just stopped by to say: The truth is out there.

:tongue:

 

[Lust]

Does "cogito ergo sum" still bear relevance to this arguement?

i pirate, therefor i yarrrrrrrr!


important is a relative term and changes value in the mind of the individual calculating it's sum. when a person begins his/her life importance is a simple mystery to solve as the person with the milk bottle or lactating boob is god. from there things get tricky.

 

[Lust]

I just stopped by to say: The truth is out there.

:tongue:

i want to believe

 

[Marlo Manson]

The beginning (Were Born)...

The end (We Die)

In between the beginning and the end Middle is the puzzle and the Meaning of life... :dunno:

Taxes (our inherent responsibility towards our country)...

Stress (too provide for our families and try to live comfortably)

Decisions (the things we do to make our lives easier or harder for surviving)

Luck (We could be stricken with disease, have a internal malfunction / illness, we could get hit by a truck @ anytime, we could get into a car accident, we can be attacked or victimized by a individual, an animal or some other faction against a mass of us, or we can get shot by a stray bullet, we could die in the event of a natural disaster, or simply from old age)

Life (the drama we endure in our lives, and the baggage of living life, stimulated by other people, money issues etc... emotions of living, in short what does it all mean? and whats the point of our lives? Until somebody can come up with a scientific conclusion of what our life is lived for, then unfortunately we have NO absolute answer whether our life or life in general as the human species is significant or important to anything or anybody except the one that walks around thinks and deals with all that comes ones direction until they die.

(this is not an answer, but more or less things that dictate what life means) :dunno::2 cents:

 

[PirateKing]

In short, no.
The simple meaning of the Latin phrase cogito ergo sum is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking).

We are already assuming that life does in fact exist. The question at hand is not whether it exists or not, but whether or not it matters or is important.

...I think the question we should ask ourselves is: what is the point of the universe without life?

We'll never be able to find the logical purpose for the existence of anything. It just IS. I think everyone would be content with this.

 

[Nokternal]

We'll never be able to find the logical purpose for the existence of anything..

I'm just asking for opinions mostly.

 

[busenbust]

There is no scientific consensus that life is important.

I believe that it isn't important to anything but the beings living it. If all life on Earth were to suddenly be snuffed out by some unimaginable force, the consequences would actually be quite small. The universe is infinitely and incomprehensibly vast, and would go on just like it always has with or without life on one tiny insignificant planet such as Earth.

Here is a little about me to explain my views and why I have them. I am both an existential nihilist and a moral nihilist.

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. It can stem from scientific analysis showing that only the physical laws contributed to our existence. With respect to the universe, a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and is not likely to change in the totality of existence. Quite simply, nihilists like me in this respect believe that the only purpose in life is to live it.

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false.

So, what do you guys think? Is life actually important to the universe? Or is life only important to the beings actually living it at the moment? If life were to suddenly end all together, would it make any cosmic difference or would it just be "business as usual" for the rest of the old universe?

Is life important to the universe, or only important to you and me?


Lets not turn this into a flame war, please. I'd like an open and honest discussion and or debate about the topic. I am not out to change any ones views here, I would just like peoples honest opinion on the topic. Your point of view is welcome, regardless of what it may be, as long as you act mature.
And remember, criticism and or disagreeing are not the same as flaming, as long as you back your self up in a mature manner :thumbsup:

source?

 

[Nokternal]

source?

My personal views and opinions. :thumbsup:

Care to share yours?

 

[busenbust]

exit busen!

 

[hammerer]

Might want to change the assertion to "there is no philosophical consensus that life is important." Science, geology and atmospheric science in particular, tell us life is extremely important in changing the earth's environment. It's biggest contribution is freeing up oxygen from metals to allow it to bind to atmospheric carbon, changing the earth from a potential venus into it's present condition.

Philosophically, I agree with your statement, insofar as you start your philosophical argument from the humanistic standpoint. Anyone starting from any theistic standpoint will come to the opposite conclusion, unless they start out with a malevolent deity.

 

[bustybbwlover]

Is life important to the universe, or only important to you and me?

life isn't even all that important to many who live, take wars over resources like diamonds or oil things which aren't even alive people are willing to kill over the inanimate so why would the universe care? unless you consider us (humanity) an expression of the universe in which case some of us believe life to be important and others consider life to be trivial...so the universe has mixed feelings

 

[BlueBalls]

In the grand scheme of things, or in the objective sense I suppose you could say (but I wouldn't) no, life is not important. But truth and any sense of meaning we might put upon our lives are all by products of human perception so life and its meaning is really what we make of it.

 

[DreamSparrow]

Is life important to the universe, or only important to you and me?

The universe isn't conscious, so how could it be 'important' to it? If you mean in terms of its ability to go on functioning (and simple functionality is not the only measure of importance people use), obviously not. Equally, it could be said that as human beings experiencing this little microcosm called Earth, the rest of the universe isn't all that important to us. Our experiences are neither at a quantum or cosmic scale.

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. It can stem from scientific analysis showing that only the physical laws contributed to our existence.

Define 'meaning' or 'value'. Precisely what does have intrinsic value? And don't say nothing has intrinsic value either, because that would be in contradiction with another point you've made.

You've told us that in the grand scheme of things, if life were to be snuffed out, the consequences would be nil or negligible, thus implying that there are cosmic events that could be considered meaningful or momentous. You've deliberately emphasised the insignificance of this planet relative to the vastness of 'the world out there'.

The obvious question to ask is, how is life on this planet any different to the universe as a whole in that sense? How did you come to the conclusion that events in the rest of the universe have more meaning or value? Does it just come down to celestial penis envy? If stuff is bigger, it must be more important? Why can't we define importance along lines of things which affect us?

Quite simply, nihilists like me in this respect believe that the only purpose in life is to live it.

I think the quest for intrinsic value in anything and questions around it to be absurd in the Kierkegaardean sense. If there is any intrinsic value to anything, it appears to be humanly unknowable. But just because something lacks intrinsic value (or it cannot be known), it doesn't mean we can't assign value. These letters we're using to form words and sentences are a completely 'artificial, human construction', yet the act of definition and acknowledgement by other parties mean they are both remarkably useful and consequential.

In a practical, non-navelgazing sense, life can be given value.

 

[LukeEl]

I grock for Spock that is why!!!

 

[Nokternal]

Equally, it could be said that as human beings experiencing this little microcosm called Earth, the rest of the universe isn't all that important to us. Our experiences are neither at a quantum or cosmic scale.

^ I like that.

Define 'meaning' or 'value'. Precisely what does have intrinsic value? And don't say nothing has intrinsic value either, because that would be in contradiction with another point you've made.

You've told us that in the grand scheme of things, if life were to be snuffed out, the consequences would be nil or negligible, thus implying that there are cosmic events that could be considered meaningful or momentous. You've deliberately emphasised the insignificance of this planet relative to the vastness of 'the world out there'.

The obvious question to ask is, how is life on this planet any different to the universe as a whole in that sense? How did you come to the conclusion that events in the rest of the universe have more meaning or value? Does it just come down to celestial penis envy? If stuff is bigger, it must be more important? Why can't we define importance along lines of things which affect us?

I did use the insignificant size of our world compared to the rest of the physical plane to illustrate my point. However this does not necessarily imply the the rest of the universe is any more important to anything, just that there is a lot more of it than what life on Earth or a similar world could ever possibly influence, making said life even that much more minuscule.

I think the quest for intrinsic value in anything and questions around it to be absurd in the Kierkegaardean sense.

Kierkegaard's meaning of nihilism differs from the definition I have given in the first post in the sense that, for Kierkegaard, it was about avoiding letting ones self lose their inherent value as an individual through an apathetic process he called "leveling." This leveling led to a life lacking meaning, purpose or value, whereas the definition I gave posits that there was never any meaning, purpose or value to begin with.

Might want to change the assertion to "there is no philosophical consensus that life is important." Science, geology and atmospheric science in particular, tell us life is extremely important in changing the earth's environment. It's biggest contribution is freeing up oxygen from metals to allow it to bind to atmospheric carbon, changing the earth from a potential venus into it's present condition.

You are correct in the sense that science does show that life is a huge factor in changing atmospheric conditions. It does not however show that these changes are in any way important to anything other than say, us. In other words, if Earth's atmospheric conditions were similar to that of Venus, would it matter? Which of course in a round-a-bout way brings us back to my original query.

 

[Ace Bandage]

I reject your reality and substitute my own...