Uh, okay, I think you're just spouting religion. I can't see any empirically valid points in there, and a few that are even philosophically absurd.
Religion? No the simple core of it is that I think in philosophical meaning of life ways. You think in a science textbook.
I'm Roman Catholic but lukewarm at best. My ideas do not spawn from any religious basis merely my experience and my own spirit.
But that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them.
Absolutely no question of that. We are ill-suited compared to some hypothetical species that are better suited. We are, after all, engaged in an exercise of the imagination here.
The problem with your imagination is that it has no core behind it. Things don't pop out of mid-air, they come into being for a reason. How did that species get to where it is? To everything there is a reason.
For example, take what I said before, if a creature can adapt well to its environment what need is there for tools? Without tools there is no technology, without technology there is no space exploration.
Or then we have your other argument about a species reinventing itself. Well, who'd want to do that? Let's say a species creates a sub species for space exploration. Why would that come about? One might say to avoid the dangers of exploring. But this idea misses the core idea that explorers want to explore. The old explorers in the Age of Sail, Captain Cook, Columbus, etcetera they didn't hire a crew and set them loose. They went out themselves. So if there is space exploration the people who want to explore it will want to do it themselves, in the flesh, because sending out some robot surrogate proxy is not the same as doing it yourself. Likewise creating some super human and sending it out won't satisfy the explorers.
Then to that you might say, well maybe this magical species doesn't have the same drive to explore. Maybe they're content staying at home and sending out some new hybrid. Well if they don't want to explore why are they creating these explorers in the first place. Everything in life is cause and effect.
The human race is who it is today because of what we are, not what we aren't. Our creations are as much as a product of our shortcomings as of our strengths, remove those shortcomings and where is the creation?
I'm not afraid of change. I see no need for it.
You say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation.
Why aren't machines species?
Because they're tools.
Why is it a good thing to stay the same species?
Why is it a good thing to change species?
What's wrong with genetic manipulation? We do it all the time already. How are you going to decide who to marry? Your genes are looking for compatible partners to hybridize with - and you're making conscious designs about a good mate.
Oh sorry. Wrong word for the science guy. Genetic ENGINEERING. Which is what you mean when you say a species redesigns itself.
While I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.
Why's that a bad thing? Why would we want to keep the core of being something obsolete?
Why would any intelligent free thinking species reject technology and consciousness in favor of their animal roots?
Again, you're straying from the argument and trying to manipulate my words.
I am talking about GENETIC ENGINEERING, so are you. But you keep changing this to be an anti-technology. Animal roots??
There is a difference between TOOL technology and manipulating your body. There is also a difference between correcting faults, and replacing PERCEIVED problems. Why does a human need better sight? Why do we need more strength? Why do we need to breathe underwanter? We can achieve all of this with tools, there is no need to change the body.
You just argued that animals would be against genetic engineering. There are plenty of humans around you who are pro-genetic-engineering. Just by that alone we can see that there's no reason to believe everyone would be as scared of change as you are.
I'm not scared of change, I'm simply comfortable with what I am. I realize that the human experience is based upon the limitations of the human form and without that form the human experience would never be the same.
Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.
Why is our irrationality at the core of being human?
Again, what's the problem if the human race dies or speciates? Would you have rather stayed as homo habilis?
The most irrational human quality is love. Love is at the core of all artistic creation. Without love there is no art, and without art we're just machines. Hell without art there's not storytelling and without storytelling there's no passing and accumulation of knowledge, and without that accumulation of knowledge we're still in the dark ages.
Without the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?
Are people more creative if they only have a lifespan of 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Where does it start dropping off?
It's just a silly superstition.
Evidence evidence evidence. You're incapable of understanding basic concepts without evidence. Or more to the point, you adamantly refuse the truths of life without evidence. Do you do more work close to a deadline, yes or no? If yes. Then there's your evidence.
What about the idea that people with terminal illness often drop everything and do everything they've wanted to do? Travel the world, see the sights. Without that illness, would they have ever gone there? Ever done those things? Or would they still be packing bags at Walmart for the rest of their life?
Er, so, how do brain implants hurt...? We're better at thinking than homo habilis was.
The problem with your argument is you keep comparing us to what we're not than what we are.
Is there a need to improve or are humans fundamentally "perfect" in the loosest sense of the word, and of course we're not perfect but if our world is defined by our imperfections will removing those imperfections create a better world?
Of course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof.
Evidence for any of that? Do uneducated third world sweatshop workers make better poets?
You mostly sound very afraid. Which is fine. Nobody's forcing anything on you.
Don't be an idiot.
You're seemingly incapable of any real thought provoking argument because you consistently FAIL to understand my core message by bringing up inane, irrelevant situations. Every scientist who has ever postulated the rules of the universe has done so out of a lack of understanding. Without that lack of understand there is no need to create.
As someone who actually likes to write poetry from time to time, poetry is often simply an attempt to put into words something that cannot otherwise be put into words. An attempt to describe the indescribable. To describe the human experience. It is that lack of understanding that drives the creation of poetry because the poem is as much a tool to help the poet understand as it a tool to help the audience understand.