上级分类: 生存危机All Life-Centered Design

Universally useful world

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

YAML 问题

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..


没有子分类。

投票 (可选) (别通知) (可选)
请,登录

欢迎[bauhouse]加入0oo!很高兴有您来到这里,您的评论非常重要!

//这意味着我们可能认为宇宙是没有生命的,但实际上它是活的。

虽然我也坚持[泛心理学](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism),但我认为有一个界限,正如保罗·布德尼克(Paul Budnik)在他的视频诗中所问的那样– [意识在哪里存在或结束? ](https://youtu.be/YDqaMFHGEZ8?t=216)。

//但是人类已经破坏了世界的工作能力

人类只是植物地球上的一种新生命形式,就像动物是植物生命之后的一种新生命形式一样。如果一种生活方式能够改变生态系统,这是否意味着它确实在损害它?例如,[最近5亿地球温度。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?


戴维·波姆(David Bohm)对量子物理学,广义相对论和整体性的探索可能使有意识的生命与无意识的生命之间的区别概念产生质疑。这意味着我们可能认为宇宙是无生命的,但它实际上是活的。如果我们依靠地球的非生命来呼吸氧气,那么这些生命形式就是维持整体健康的有机组成部分。

那么,创造这样一个世界是相当自负的。相反,我们不仅应该观察世界已经为所有生命运作的方式,而是人类通过破坏生命系统而损害了世界的工作能力吗?

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?


我觉得应该是为有知觉的生物(sentient life)。这个范围仍然很大。


是一生一世,还是一生一世?有些生命形式,例如病毒,可以说不容易感知。我们如何考虑呢?

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?


语言