LanDroid wrote:

NDT wrote:We are stardust brought to life, then empowered by the universe to figure itself out - and we have only just begun.

Chapter 1 ends on a high note.

Yes, this stardust melody of human life, what Hoagy Carmichael called ‘the memory of love’s refrain’, is central to the story of science. Earlier in this thread I said “in scientific thought the universe reflects upon itself in symbols, and this complex activity means human flourishing is intrinsically good.”

Considering planet earth, and therefore human life, as flotsam of the sun is a way to expand Tyson’s idea here of "the universe figuring itself out" in a way that can provide meaning to the old religious idea from Genesis that man is made in the image of God.

The mathematics of physics is among the most complex evolved structures on our planet, and involves the universe itself organising through the cumulative process of natural evolution to reflect its natural laws in the symbolic images of human thought.

Robert Tulip wrote: Yes, this stardust melody of human life, what Hoagy Carmichael called ‘the memory of love’s refrain’, is central to the story of science. Earlier in this thread I said “in scientific thought the universe reflects upon itself in symbols, and this complex activity means human flourishing is intrinsically good.”

You're going to think me cynical, but this attitude of seeing human flourishing as intrinsically good is just what we'd expect if natural selection had equipped us with mental structures that would effectively increase our numbers. Also, that our species has a significance on some "cosmic" level is an impulse that can give us license to do whatever seems to be best for our species, regardless of what would promote the welfare of the rest of life. I think we need to be less full of ourselves. That's a reason I'm attracted to Thoreau and Robinson Jeffers. Don't worry, we can still celebrate humanity, but we need to beware of species chauvinism.

DWill? If we followed the point of view that the procreation of our species was the most important issue, then we would exterminate all that was not uniform and correct in our genes: so people with Down's syndrome would have to go, for instance, but people like this this are loveable and loved, we know it isn't sensible or scientific, but our emotions are more powerful than our scientific rationale. Our HUMANITY......not sensible....but the only thing about us worth preserving.....perhaps? Maybe?

I think I am trying to say that love is irrational but it is beautiful and powerful and we need to find the balance. If we were purely scientific beings, we would be zombies...,if we were purely emotional we would be like cobwebs. Balance is what we need....yoga....means balance. X

Penelope wrote:DWill? If we followed the point of view that the procreation of our species was the most important issue, then we would exterminate all that was not uniform and correct in our genes: so people with Down's syndrome would have to go, for instance, but people like this this are loveable and loved, we know it isn't sensible or scientific, but our emotions are more powerful than our scientific rationale. Our HUMANITY......not sensible....but the only thing about us worth preserving.....perhaps? Maybe?

I think I am trying to say that love is irrational but it is beautiful and powerful and we need to find the balance. If we were purely scientific beings, we would be zombies...,if we were purely emotional we would be like cobwebs. Balance is what we need....yoga....means balance. X

Hey there Penelope! Maybe the key is what we choose to mean by "flourishing." I was trying to disagree with Robert's blanket statement, which I thought could be taken to mean that we need only to refer to benefits to us when pursuing any course of action. Example: animal medical research. If torturing animals within experiments leads to advances in human medicine, one line of thinking says we are fully justified. Another example is elimination of species habitat, and thus species, due to the extension of our own habitat. We don't need to be concerned about snail darters, goes a line of thinking on that matter. It goes against our ingrained, hardwired natures to not pursue every perceived benefit that our unprecedented technological ability makes possible. But I think we need to step back often, calculate the effect of our actions on the whole, and put the brakes on, practice some self-denial. We deceive ourselves when we say we can have it both ways--take care of ourselves in whatever way we choose while not impinging on the rest of life around us.

I was trying to say that the procreation of our species is not the most important issue, but rather a large part of the problem. Sorry if that didn't come through.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: Yes, this stardust melody of human life, what Hoagy Carmichael called ‘the memory of love’s refrain’, is central to the story of science. Earlier in this thread I said “in scientific thought the universe reflects upon itself in symbols, and this complex activity means human flourishing is intrinsically good.”

You're going to think me cynical, but this attitude of seeing human flourishing as intrinsically good is just what we'd expect if natural selection had equipped us with mental structures that would effectively increase our numbers.

I take a Biblical view on what is required for human flourishing, based on the core ethical axiom of Jesus Christ that the last are first in the Kingdom of God. That means that human flourishing, creating heaven on earth, intrinsically requires a focus on the least of the world, ranging from soils, bacteria and all biodiversity up to concern for the hungry, thirsty, poor, sick, imprisoned and refugees. Without climate stability humans cannot flourish, and without an ethical focus on the least of the world the climate will produce a repeat of the Permian Great Dying. Rev 11:18, the Bible saying that the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth, means that human flourishing involves ecological concern.

DWill wrote: Also, that our species has a significance on some "cosmic" level is an impulse that can give us license to do whatever seems to be best for our species, regardless of what would promote the welfare of the rest of life.

Cosmic significance is an idea that goes back to the Genesis theme of dominion, commonly misinterpreted to mean that human distinctiveness arising from language means spirit is above nature and we have a right to destroy nature. Rather than such a destructive concept of domination, the Biblical vision is about wise stewardship, nurturing resources to sustain growth and complexity. It may “seem to be best for our species” to add ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year, treating the atmosphere as an open sewer, but it is not best, since keeping along that line will stratify the sea and kill us all. Not flourishing.

DWill wrote: I think we need to be less full of ourselves. That's a reason I'm attracted to Thoreau and Robinson Jeffers.

Yes, excellent point. I have not heard of Jeffers though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Jeffers#Context says “Jeffers believed that transcending conflict required human concerns to be de-emphasized in favor of the boundless whole.” How I would react to all that is to say we need to distinguish between conscious ego and subconscious id in considering our selves. We need to be less full of conscious ego and more full of subconscious id, which is where we connect to what Jeffers calls the boundless whole. As the Indian mystics beloved by Thoreau would say, thou art that.

DWill wrote: Don't worry, we can still celebrate humanity, but we need to beware of species chauvinism.

Good point, but it remains the case that humans have dominion and stewardship on our planet, a power conferred by language, and face the challenge of using our talents and gifts wisely or going extinct.

Robert Tulip wrote: Cosmic significance is an idea that goes back to the Genesis theme of dominion, commonly misinterpreted to mean that human distinctiveness arising from language means spirit is above nature and we have a right to destroy nature. Rather than such a destructive concept of domination, the Biblical vision is about wise stewardship, nurturing resources to sustain growth and complexity. It may “seem to be best for our species” to add ten cubic kilometres of carbon to the air every year, treating the atmosphere as an open sewer, but it is not best, since keeping along that line will stratify the sea and kill us all. Not flourishing.

That was eloquent. I'm not sure, though, that Genesis is really misinterpreted on the dominion injunction. Though I deplore the effects of seeing humans as primarily subduers, the larger lesson is that slavish adherence to any scripture can be bad. Of course, it really isn't Genesis, anyway, that gave us the idea that we must dominate. That's an idea that civilization grew up with and was sanctified in the Bible.

Good point, but it remains the case that humans have dominion and stewardship on our planet, a power conferred by language, and face the challenge of using our talents and gifts wisely or going extinct.

Human adaptability makes it very doubtful that climate change will cause us to become extinct. Our persistence isn't the point, though. The point is whether our values really extend to what we often give lip service to--the right to existence of all other living things. Today brings news that the Republican Congress may be able to succeed in wiping out protections to prevent extinctions.