I have a (non-scientific, so possibly false) belief that anything with a beginning will inevitably have an end. So I can understand that the choice here is doom now or doom later. But why is it split 50%/50%? In my opinion, "doom" via pollution is more certain than by an extintion level asteroid impact. An asteroid impact is more certain (within the timeframe of 200 years) than "doom" via space-travel induced evolution of the species.
I also wonder what the response to this argument should be on a philosophical level. Does the author say at all? Everybody dies at the appointed time, with no exceptions. Are we supposed to be worried? What would that accomplish?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 10:34 pm (UTC)I also wonder what the response to this argument should be on a philosophical level. Does the author say at all? Everybody dies at the appointed time, with no exceptions. Are we supposed to be worried? What would that accomplish?