Taking comfort in the potential extinction of humanity because at least there would be some non-sapient critters still around strikes me as an odd value system. Couldn't you make the analogous argument that the extinction of all life on Earth would be fine since it would have absolutely no effect on the vast majority of the universe?
I don't take comfort in the potential extinction of humanity!
Surely we recognize that living things exist independent and outside of us without needing to lessen our own existence.
>Couldn't you make the analogous argument that the extinction of all life on Earth would be fine since it would have absolutely no effect on the vast majority of the universe?
If you assume humans are not unique in the universe, you're immediately confronted with the Fermi paradox. If the universe is filled with sapient life, wouldn't some of that sapient life be hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us--a tiny amount of time on the astronomical timescale, but more than enough for them to be observable in some way? Ultimately we're left with the unsatisfying task of speculating without evidence, at least for now.
It could be that life at our current level is more observable to life at our current level than more advanced life would be. The "Dark Forest" hypothesis from 三体 would be one explanation, but even that isn't required. It could be that advanced life can better meet its needs via technology that we can't sense. That was certainly plausible before we could broadcast over the electromagnetic field, which wasn't so long ago. Perhaps it is still plausible, because we're still missing out on something important.
I'm not sure I follow. How is it gone? We have fusion (solar) and fission. And we may find out how to more directly harness energy as we progress. I think our access to energy is limited by our lack of knowledge.
I agree though, we should get out on some new space vessels soon to buy some insurance and project ourselves into the far future.
If we go extinct, the next intelligent species (if there is one) won’t have the easy reserves we used to get started. You can’t jump directly from fire to fusion.
That's not true: given enough time decomposing organic material will create new oil reserves, while all the metals excavated are still right here on the surface of the Earth used every day by us (cars, phones, ...) and ready to re-enter the surface once we are done using them.
even leaving out monkeys and apes, i think other animals like for example racoons can make it to the "sapient" level with time if humans would "release" the space back to the Nature. And i think we have only very slightest idea about birds and insects. Cro-Magnon has been i'd say a version 0.7 of sapience with major bugs and broken&missing features, and i'd not be surprised if the Nature had other versions in the works.
That's entirely possible. But sapience isn't necessarily adaptive. Ancient humans combined sapience with other traits like endurance, dexterity, overhand throwing ability, and social instincts to carve out an ecological niche long enough to reap the benefits of culture. Removing any one of those factors would have made prehistoric humans unviable.
If I was going to bet on non-human sapience, though, I'd go with crows. Intelligence seems to be most effective if you combine it with social instincts to create culture. Crows do this already.
