上級分類: 生存危機All Life-Centered Design

Universally useful world

How to create a world, that works for all life?

YAML 問題

The question comes from discussions at Buckminster Fuller Institute, Trimtab Space Camp workshop and a global community of comprehensive thinkers and doers who are looking to connect with each other to create a world that works for 100% of life..


沒有子分類。

投票 (可選) (別通知) (可選)
請,登錄

是一生一世,還是一生一世?有些生命形式,例如病毒,可以說不容易感知。我們如何考慮呢?

Should it be for all life, or for sentient life? There are life forms, like viruses, that are arguably not readily sentient. How do we think about that?


我覺得應該是爲有知覺的生物(sentient life)。這個範圍仍然很大。


戴維·波姆(David Bohm)對量子物理學,廣義相對論和整體性的探索可能使有意識的生命與無意識的生命之間的區別概念產生質疑。這意味着我們可能認爲宇宙是無生命的,但它實際上是活的。如果我們依靠地球的非生命來呼吸氧氣,那麼這些生命形式就是維持整體健康的有機組成部分。

那麼,創造這樣一個世界是相當自負的。相反,我們不僅應該觀察世界已經爲所有生命運作的方式,而是人類通過破壞生命系統而損害了世界的工作能力嗎?

David Bohm’s explorations of quantum physics, general relativity, and wholeness might bring into question the notion of a distinction between sentient life and non-sentient life. The implication is that we may have conceived of the universe as being lifeless, but it is actually alive. If we depend on the non-sentient life of the Earth for the oxygen we breathe, those life forms are an integral part of the whole that maintains the health of the whole.

Creating such a world is rather presumptuous, then. Instead, should we not merely observe how the world already works for all life, but that humans have compromised the world’s ability to work as it has been working by disrupting the systems of life?


歡迎[bauhouse]加入0oo!很高興有您來到這裏,您的評論非常重要!

//這意味着我們可能認爲宇宙是沒有生命的,但實際上它是活的。

雖然我也堅持[泛心理學](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism),但我認爲有一個界限,正如保羅·佈德尼克(Paul Budnik)在他的視頻詩中所問的那樣– [意識在哪裏存在或結束? ](https://youtu.be/YDqaMFHGEZ8?t=216)。

//但是人類已經破壞了世界的工作能力

人類只是植物地球上的一種新生命形式,就像動物是植物生命之後的一種新生命形式一樣。如果一種生活方式能夠改變生態系統,這是否意味着它確實在損害它?例如,[最近5億地球溫度。年](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

Welcome [bauhouse] to the 0oo! It's great to have you here, and your comment is very relevant!

// The implication is that we may have conceived of the universe as being lifeless, but it is actually alive.

While I also adhere to panpsychism, I think there is a boundary, as Paul Budnik asks in his video poem -- where does the consciousness beings or ends?.

// but that humans have compromised the world’s ability to work as it has been working

Humans are just a new life form on the plant Earth, just like animals were a new form of life, after plant life. If a form of life is able to change ecosystem, does it mean that it really compromises it? For example, Earth's temperature during the last 500 mln. years has been outside the current range, and the ecosystem has recovered. I think it's worth a discussion and research to understand, how much humans do actually compromise the world’s ability to deal with the consequences. Albeit, it's a bit of a digression from universal utility.

My concern is, that of what to consider to be "life," and does all life, including life in computational universes, like in Avida, count, and if so, how?


語言