> there's no particular reason to rejoice [...] it's all ashes in the end
I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense.
The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future.
But why?
What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)?
Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now?
(Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)
I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense.
The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future.
But why?
What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)?
Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now?
(Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)