the only way for humans to survive is to get off this planet, and onto as many other planets as possible. this is a reasonably well recognised fact, when one thinks that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and will one day wipe most, if not all, living things from the face of the earth. but spreading ourselves has an ugly side. give it enough time, and there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands of other planets, all with their human populations counting into the billions. so let’s suppose that one day, there are 1000 planets, each with about 10 billion people each. that seems entirely feasible enough. then think of an asteroid coming and completely obliterating one of those planets. billions of people dying in an infinitessimal (comsologically speaking) amount of time. not so good.
what’s worse? suppose that we get a colony going on another planet, and wham, along comes our asteroid again. it doesn’t matter which planet it hits, half the human population dies in our cosmological second. but wait. it gets even worse.
suppose we are on one planet, and that planet is destroyed. all people disappear. that’s not a bad day. because there would be no one around to have that bad day.
but built into this is the assumption that human survival is a good thing. there are three ways this can be seen. it is either:
1. Good that humans survive,
2. Bad that humans survive,
3. there is no good or bad, there just is. call it ambivalence.
which is it? that the moose head is pondering. and you can too.