The universe has infinite energy, but we have a speck of time and energy.
We can either waste it, or use it wisely.
“Waste” is just another word for evil or undesirable.
When we waste a life, it equates to us being evil about a life, or towards a life.
Good and evil are the babiest of baby steps in moral philosophy.
Some people think they can walk on water, even if they never have and never will.
I wanted to talk about waste, since it seems to be a greater threat than war, even though war has a lot of waste in it.
If I think about human life, I see waste in and around all of it.
A star could carefully conserve its energy, no longer giving off heat, radiation, light, etc.
Instead, it is passive. It does not care. It beams. The sun wastes its life.
Likewise, human beings will beam their life away on base desires.
Who is it that wants to conserve his life, to save it up for only a special higher occation?
Only those who are confident of it. Of course void of opportunity (aka “freedom”), confidence can only come from serious naivety or clear promises from “above”. Having no such promises and seeing such lack of opportunity, the mind can only make choices based on much lower goals and falls to consumption.
I rephrase as such… Why is it necessary to conserve one’s life to save it for a higher occasion? Confidence does always come from serious naivety, but confidence can also come from a (respectively) greater knowledge (than to whom the confidence is being expressed).
The universe has infinite energy, but we have a speck of time and energy.
We can either waste it, or use it wisely.
i love this forum
“Waste” is just another word for evil or undesirable.
When we waste a life, it equates to us being evil about a life, or towards a life
Don’t know yet if the universe is infinite therefore the amount of energy it would contain may as result be finite. It is fun to think of such expansive terms but there is the matter of practicality. To speak in terms of all this infinite energy that exists 7 billion light years away, seems to speak in terms of if it exists at all.
Obviously from your premise I can presume you think, a life, can be “wasted”.
You really confident that “we” are all that capable of a judge? I think human beings lack the scope of awareness required to make such an assessments.
It’s better to try than it is to give up.
Optimism or fatalism, which seems more “empirical” ?
I think if people work hard at developing their judgementalness, they can even out preform a professional judge sometimes.
Life and consciousness, you say. By “life” I presume you mean reproducing–having babies–and by “consciousness” I presume you mean… the consciousness of those babies? Or do you mean learning? As in, becoming more conscious of the world by engaging in science or research or books or your own personal experiences, etc.
So you think life and consciousness are of utmost value in human life, huh? Otherwise, why would you call everything else a “waste”?
Where was giving up mentioned? The notion of a glass being half full or half empty should not be so perplexing. On this planet and in this experience the glass has always been full, If it is half full of water the other half is full of air. Both commodities we seem to depend upon. Even when the glass has had nothing intentionally placed in it, it is still full, anything added, merely displaces what was already there, the glass, upon closer examination, was never empty, such that its degree of fullness (optimism) would be open to question.
The universe, through its exhibited evolution, is an efficient system and nothing goes to “waste”, even if we judge it to be. Garbage or treasure, the terms appear at times interchangeable depending on perspective.
A premise has described the process of combustion as if the molecules of hydrogen have a choice in the matter and that is, in this estimation, questionable thinking.
Judgement is very well limited to what we are aware of and what we assume. First, perhaps, before judgement, exhaustive query should take place to insure the premises we base the judgements upon are sound.
As illustrated in the following excerpt.
Is it being suggested that stars are self determining organisms? That they have the capacity to ‘choose’ between could or not; that a star has a capacity to ‘choose’ to care or not? And that a star, namely our sun is wasting it’s “life”. What “life” is that? Define life. Are you comparing the cosmic emergence of a star as a literal birth and its supernova as a literal death, such that it is like or akin to life as one species living on a planet has defined it? Aren’t you sort of mixing metaphors a little to literally?
Could be… but I don’t think the case has been argued to the point it can be assumed and that is what the premised line of reasoning does. And adding any notion of it, as an ‘evil’, doesn’t help.
A remembered parable, but I can not quote it, nor am I certain I have not embellished it with my own reasoning.
A woodsman comes upon a old grand oak tree; with his axe in hand, he pauses to consider chopping the tree down.
He looks within its branches and the shade it casts upon the ground and sees all the life this tree is providing. And he considers his new wife and the family he would like to have and how with the wood from this tree he could build a wonderful home for his prospective family. As he raises his ax he can not bring himself to strike the tree. He returns to his lands and instead constructs his home of stone and mortar.
Many years later he comes upon the tree, apparently struck by lightning and decaying on the forest floor, and notices the life it still provides for.
He has loved his wife, but they were never graced with children. The plants and animals of the earth are his stewards, and in the end it could have never been a waste to cut that tree, despite what were his plans; as the earth always gets hers, despite what ever usefulness as conception lies between it and its end.
Waste, as a term, should be limited to the paradigm from which it has emerged; the activities of man. Waste as a conception, has no bearing on a star and how bright it burns.
LOL How about just not contrive meaning onto what has none, then you would not have to ask such a question.
Note, I did attempt to make my comments as impersonal as I was able, what’s up Moderator? Can’t you even attempt to follow your own rules? Why the personal insinuation?
Some people want to die, some don’t.
Some people want to give meaning forever.
Some people feel more comfortable not giving meaning forever,
or they may even feel more comfortable destroying meanings.
That’s a big claim. A lot of people have claimed the universe is meaningless.
That’s the lazy way out. It’s nihilistic.
