In economic terms, certainly
-
-
don't get me wrong, humans may survive (however improbable that might seem), although that's a contingency, and possibly a question of identity. but survival never dies.
-
Survival is a concept or principle. Particular beings or creatures (or groups of) can die, but to say that "survival never dies" (survival itself will survive) is not meaningful, afaics.
-
survival is first and foremost a reality, which then gets conceptualised. and if grasping hard limits don't provide meaning, then meaning should give up right now.
-
Im not sure I follow. Particular creatures (like man) can die. If man dies out then he has failed in his sole moral obligation (according to u). The fact that survival continues to exist as a concept or that other creatures survive doesnt seem relevant.
-
...to Man.
-
Man is only of particular relevance as he is at the frontier of evolution. If that frontier shifts forward into silicon based intelligence, mans relevance as a vector for meta-evolutionary purposes is diminished and his relevance is abnegated.
-
That might be true from certain perspectives, but if u take survival as the ultimate moral value, the significance of man's survival is not related to his position on the evolutionary frontier.
-
(actually such a statement would constitute a kind of obscenity or transgression under this philosophy)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.