Asklemmy

42493 readers

1398 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If we discover the means to travel faster than light, but researching and developing the technology means that the Earth is destroyed in just a few decades, should the technology still be pursued? (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Edit: A bunch of yall don't seem to grasp the concept of a theoretical question

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What is the benefit of nature? Worth and importance are intrinsically human judgements, the universe doesn't give a damn about birds and plants any more than it does about us.

If you value life in general, humanity is the best chance life on earth has of ever getting off planet earth and into the galaxy before the sun dies.