First, consider two primordial organisms. One is immortal and nonreproductive. It could still be alive somewhere.
The other is mortal and reproductive. All living things are descendants.
Reproduction implies expansion, spreading. Life is like fire: it is hungry, it burns with desire, needs to feed and spread or it dies. Life expands into every possible ecological niche: arctic ice, deep underground rocks, volcanic hotsprings.
I consider that the possible teleological purpose of humanity for life as a whole is expansion into space: that we are essentially a fruiting body like a flower or mushroom, where an organism concentrates its life-force to spread its seed to the wind. Humanity is unique in being able to do this.
If a Creator caused life to take root on Earth, might spreading this life be God's work?
I actually do agree with you that space exploration is valuable, appreciating creation is appreciating the creator after all. As with many valuable parts of creation though, the problem can come when this is elevated to an idolatrous level, or if it's focused on to such an extent that it leads to a neglect of more important things.
Given that space is still just barely at the limit of human capability, it requires tremendous concentration and expenditure of resources. Some would argue that money should be given to the dregs of humanity instead.
I am interested only in humanity's leading edge and future as a species, not the fat tail of evolutionary lef5t-behinds. It's basically a values/judgment call.
I like Musk despite him being a total dick because he is clearly totally devoted to getting us established in space, exactly like Werner von Braun was created to get us there. I think they were both created by and working the will of some great power, God or whatever, maybe just the life-force itself, that wants to see the Martian desert bloom, and created humanity, imperfect botch-jobs, for this purpose.
Life needs air, earth and water, but is itself fire: almost all life literally burns carbon. And fire acts like life: needs to breath and eat, to grow, or fade and die.
I definitely wouldn't argue for giving tax money to blacks instead of space exploration. I think Tarkovsky was more making a statement about the value of art/nature/human relationships rather than where are public resources should be allocated.
I was just thinking about Blacks and 'reparations' and how money given to Blacks is wasted.
I spent some time in the south of Chile. The índios down there are formidable (evolving in a cold climate does that). At one point I met a sheepherder near Corrál, had an interesting conversation with him, and it struck me that all those folks needed was some capital: investment-grade people.
I must disagree with you, on a biological basis.
First, consider two primordial organisms. One is immortal and nonreproductive. It could still be alive somewhere.
The other is mortal and reproductive. All living things are descendants.
Reproduction implies expansion, spreading. Life is like fire: it is hungry, it burns with desire, needs to feed and spread or it dies. Life expands into every possible ecological niche: arctic ice, deep underground rocks, volcanic hotsprings.
I consider that the possible teleological purpose of humanity for life as a whole is expansion into space: that we are essentially a fruiting body like a flower or mushroom, where an organism concentrates its life-force to spread its seed to the wind. Humanity is unique in being able to do this.
If a Creator caused life to take root on Earth, might spreading this life be God's work?
I actually do agree with you that space exploration is valuable, appreciating creation is appreciating the creator after all. As with many valuable parts of creation though, the problem can come when this is elevated to an idolatrous level, or if it's focused on to such an extent that it leads to a neglect of more important things.
Given that space is still just barely at the limit of human capability, it requires tremendous concentration and expenditure of resources. Some would argue that money should be given to the dregs of humanity instead.
I am interested only in humanity's leading edge and future as a species, not the fat tail of evolutionary lef5t-behinds. It's basically a values/judgment call.
I like Musk despite him being a total dick because he is clearly totally devoted to getting us established in space, exactly like Werner von Braun was created to get us there. I think they were both created by and working the will of some great power, God or whatever, maybe just the life-force itself, that wants to see the Martian desert bloom, and created humanity, imperfect botch-jobs, for this purpose.
Life needs air, earth and water, but is itself fire: almost all life literally burns carbon. And fire acts like life: needs to breath and eat, to grow, or fade and die.
I definitely wouldn't argue for giving tax money to blacks instead of space exploration. I think Tarkovsky was more making a statement about the value of art/nature/human relationships rather than where are public resources should be allocated.
I was just thinking about Blacks and 'reparations' and how money given to Blacks is wasted.
I spent some time in the south of Chile. The índios down there are formidable (evolving in a cold climate does that). At one point I met a sheepherder near Corrál, had an interesting conversation with him, and it struck me that all those folks needed was some capital: investment-grade people.