Thread

1. I_dream_of_Geni · 1790469671 · focus · HN ↗

   OK... Serious question here: we find "life" (algae?) on one of Saturn's moons or one of Jupiter's moons. So, we spend ~$50 Billion (arguably much more) and find "life". So? Why is this important to people? There isn't one chance in (place your own word here) that we can do anything about it or even send humans there. Seriously want to know what people really think...

   1. dzink · 1790472330 · focus · HN ↗

      Because of statistics. If we can find life, potentially started independently or pollinated in a couple of planets close to each-other, then life is everywhere and we may be in a dark forest of intelligent or hidden native predatory beings waiting to wipe us out if we squeak or show up elsewhere. If it's not as frequent, then we can keep exploring to look for it and more human-habitable spots.

      1. rafram · 1790473325 · focus · HN ↗

         I have a premonition that even if extraterrestrial life is discovered, and even if intelligent, hostile extraterrestrial life is somehow discovered, humans are not going to leave it alone.

         After all, everyone involved can just say it's inevitable! If we don't do it, someone else will.

         1. nkrisc · 1790507002 · focus · HN ↗

            It’s the same, lame, self-fulfilling excuse that gets used for every bad thing someone does dressed up as a necessary thing.

            You can see it right now with AI barreling forward. If we don’t develop it, someone else will, so we will ensuring it happens.

            Of course we can never prove or disprove their claim of “someone else will” because they went ahead and did it.

            1. trimethylpurine · 1790524127 · focus · HN ↗

               You can't prove that walking through walls is impossible but you are an idiot if you keep trying. It hurts. That's called inductive reasoning.

               We've never seen a case where some government in some country doesn't work as hard as possible to ensure that they have the biggest possible weapon. So you should believe someone is doing that. (Point in fact, we know of several governments currently trying to achieve nuclear, aerial, and AI superiority today.)

               You can check out why scientists use this same philosophy in modern discovery and belief systems by catching up on the subject of "the philosophy of science." You'll find some 5,000 years of scientific debate and conclusions that roughly culminate in the above system of belief.

               1. nkrisc · 1790548596 · focus · HN ↗

                  I’m well aware of why people do it, that doesn’t change my feelings about it or my opinion of it.

                  Developing the more heinous weapons before the other guy is the pragmatic thing to do, but it doesn’t give you the moral high ground.

                  > (Point in fact, we know of several governments currently trying to achieve nuclear, aerial, and AI superiority today.)

                  And why are they doing that? To get it first since others will do it anyway.

                  1. trimethylpurine · 1790629484 · focus · HN ↗

                     So, honest question, that being the case, is the best solution to let them gain superiority, exercise revolution at the cost of millions of lives, and then hope they don't kill you and your countrymen?

                     I think making seemingly moral short term decisions that result in maximum casualties is not actually moral. It's stupid, and wrong.

                     Creating an arms race by letting someone who isn't the current leader gain an advantage ensures that a power struggle will ensue. It implies revolution in all known cases in history.

                     The moral high ground you're referring to should result in the best outcome. It doesn't arise from a guy standing at the top of a hill by himself shouting that he's the most moral guy while getting us all killed in the course of violent revolution. That's just megalomania.

                     They're very similar. One relies on rational thinking about actual expected outcomes, the other relies on one's own opinion about right and wrong.

                     You have to be careful because it's deceivingly easy to be the latter and end up an accidental megalomaniac that kills us all.

                     See history for countless examples.

                     You mentioned your feelings. I'm glad you did. Your feelings are nearly always a guide to bad outcomes. I'd trust you more as a leader if you instead relied on your rational faculties to guide us to good and moral decisions and outcomes.

                     And I'm confident that you'd find that your self doubt is diminished when you can self reflect on your decisions and find in all cases that they were made using the best information at the time, instead of how you felt about them at the time.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.