Wilhelm44

@aurum When creating nature, do you think God was half assing it ?

Good luck with that, How do you expect even our best geo engineers to be creating from a higher level of intelligence than the level of intelligence that created nature in the first place ?

@aurum I have no problem with geo engineering helping us out in a crisis. But when I hear talk of thinking that we can 'improve' nature somehow, I hear ego, not God per say. Nature was created from another level of intelligence, we won't be able to out create that.

Your answers are very evasive. It's a simple question, forget about the engineers, how would you personally like nature to be 'better' ? Just give one example of something that you would like to see 'improved' in nature ?

I asked you, which part of nature is not to your liking ?

Which part of nature is not good enough for you ? How would you improve a tree or a flower or a bird or a mountain or the ocean ?

But there are consequences on this level of existence. For example, interfere with nature too much and see what happens.

You still havent answered my original question. Why would you want to replace anything in nature with your own creation ? Especially since you dont have a problem with nature and you say it's lovely ?

So when im being a devil i get a free pass because im still God, I dont think so.

And how do you know that nature wants to be replaced ? It just seems like the peak of human arrogance to me.

What proble A better question would be, what problem do you have with nature ? Why this fantasy of being able to replace nature ?

Of course we are part of evolution. That doesnt mean we should replace nature just because we can

Nature knows how to evolve just fine. You are saying maybe you would, maybe you would'nt. So lets say you would. Once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you still want to replace nature ?

Okay, lets say these categories dont exist, lets say its all God. Still the question is there, once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to somehow replace nature ?

Once you have saved humanity and nature, why the need to replace nature with something else ?

Can you try and answer my question first ?

So, once you have saved humanity and nature, why would you then still want to replace nature with something artificial ?

Thats a very lazy answer. I would like to get clarity on one thing here, because I see you didn't disagree with Miguel's comment earlier. Are you seeing geo engineering projects as a way to help save humanity and nature. Or do you agree with Miguel's comment, ie to potentially replace nature with something artificial that supposedly does nature better than nature itself ?

The potential for delusions of grandeur are so obvious here. Yes, AI and all these other new technologies have an amazing ability to make things better in a lot of ways. And yes, we are one with God. But if I created a video game, it would be literally impossible for a group of characters in the video game, to somehow out create me in terms of quality etc. So even though I am God, it would be wise to also remember my place as a human being. Mother nature can become a very cruel bitch when messed with too much. @Miguel1

It's also not true that AI serves the purpose of humans better than they do. (That's looking at humans from a very narrow perspective, as if jobs are our main purpose for existing.) There are some things that AI wont be able to do. Deep intuition for one thing. Experiencing metaphysical love is another example. AI is limited to current set of knowledge it can work with. Conscious humans do have the potential to experience divine revelation. This is something in our divine DNA blueprint that you cant just put into a machine. Same principle applies to nature.

When you go to a restaurant and you have a choice between a plate of organic food, and a plate of food that comes from geoengineered crops, you would probably choose the organic food. Why is that ?

These geoengineering projects are there to help save nature, not to replace nature.

If you mean from a big picture point of view, ie a neccessity to save us from self destruction in late stage capitalism, then yes. But i still dont see it as evolution in the sense of a mechanical forrest somehow being just as good or better than the original blueprint. Lets not underestimate the otherwordly genius of nature.

I guess you have a point. Will the government give the go ahead for some of these geoengineering projects ?

Quote from the video: "Play is flirting with reality."