>heat death of the universe is our ultimate destiny
We have bigger and more urgent and realistic fish to fry before worrying about heat death. Insofar as you care about the health and well-being of humanity as a whole, and the biosphere in which we are embedded, then you cannot let yourself zoom out so far in ethical concerns, or else you become effectively antisocial.
We have nested problems at the global, national, and local level that all need attention. But of course it is relatively easy to get to the bleeding edge of Spyro speed-running than it is to get to the bleeding edge of solving real-world problems that have faced humanity, in one form or another, for thousands of years.
Life is partly about the journey, but if a side effect of your life is to chew up the biosphere to make cool new toys and experiences for you, then yes, I think you're better off taking up Spyro. Even better, though, if you recognize a challenge that some larger group faces, and apply yourself to solving that, at least part time.
I would argue that the leading problem facing humanity is humanity. (Evidence: the last century is more than adequate.) Our supposed best were using their combined wisdom to create atomic weapons (regardless of the ecological problems created). One of them reportedly recalled the phrase 'I am become death' from the Gita in reponse to seeing what he'd wrought ... suggesting a distressing fatalism.)
If harmless distraction works, yeah, maybe we'd better go with that ... until mindful leadership emerges. (Breath-holding is discouraged.)
What do you mean? The expansion of the sun, or a meteor strike, or a caldera explosion, something like that? Well, yes of course those are all likely on some large time scale, but they are entirely out of our control. Meanwhile we have every likelihood of having a 1M year existence, as a species embedded in a biosphere, if we can "get on the same page" with respect to our behavior. I propose that we adopt the universal rule that we all act "consistent with our survival, and that of our species" in an exact analogue to Issac Asimov's Zeroeth law of robotics. It is a small jump from that to the protection of the biosphere in general, if you are willing to ignore the strong emotional pull of science fantasy narratives that imply that we can survive without it.
There's just absolutely no evidence to support this statement. We don't know enough about meta/xeno-biology to say that life isnt a self-sustaining phenomenon in a thermodynamic sense. It may be that human-like "intelligence" is actually an emergent phenomenon, not unlike cancer, that has the potential to disrupt an otherwise homeostatic set of processes.
I think he was referring to the eventual expansion of our star such that our orbit is smaller than its diameter. Of course that's no excuse to be a jerk in the meantime.
We have bigger and more urgent and realistic fish to fry before worrying about heat death. Insofar as you care about the health and well-being of humanity as a whole, and the biosphere in which we are embedded, then you cannot let yourself zoom out so far in ethical concerns, or else you become effectively antisocial.
We have nested problems at the global, national, and local level that all need attention. But of course it is relatively easy to get to the bleeding edge of Spyro speed-running than it is to get to the bleeding edge of solving real-world problems that have faced humanity, in one form or another, for thousands of years.
Life is partly about the journey, but if a side effect of your life is to chew up the biosphere to make cool new toys and experiences for you, then yes, I think you're better off taking up Spyro. Even better, though, if you recognize a challenge that some larger group faces, and apply yourself to solving that, at least part time.