I would also contemplate the scenario that the human species might turn out to be less impressive than it currently appears, and is actually a fairly typical example of a successful Earth species. Most achievements that distinguish humans from eg plankton are in the future (eg space industry), not the past or present.
This might sound strange. Arguments in favor of this perspective:
• Homo sapiens is not the greatest species in terms of population or total biomass.
• Homo sapiens is not the only species to make tools, use agriculture, build buildings, or adapt to a variety of terrestrial habitats.
• Homo sapiens is not the first species to have a catastrophic impact on the atmosphere.
Arguments against this perspective:
• The human economy is currently doubling in scale every couple decades.
• No species (probably) ever reached the edge of the atmosphere before Homo sapiens.
(To clarify, i think this question is far from settled. But i think the idea that Homo sapiens will be smaller-impact than expected is more likely than the scenario that historical gods are representations of unknown prosperous civilizations.)
If we look on humans as on typical species, we could use typical estimate of species life expectancy, which is several million years, and use it as human life expectancy. It is not bad.
But humans are definitely in the special point of their history and they could create a competitor soon (post humans or AI) and doesn’t look good. Competitors are one of the main ways how species go extinct.
I would also contemplate the scenario that the human species might turn out to be less impressive than it currently appears, and is actually a fairly typical example of a successful Earth species. Most achievements that distinguish humans from eg plankton are in the future (eg space industry), not the past or present.
This might sound strange. Arguments in favor of this perspective:
• Homo sapiens is not the greatest species in terms of population or total biomass.
• Homo sapiens is not the only species to make tools, use agriculture, build buildings, or adapt to a variety of terrestrial habitats.
• Homo sapiens is not the first species to have a catastrophic impact on the atmosphere.
Arguments against this perspective:
• The human economy is currently doubling in scale every couple decades.
• No species (probably) ever reached the edge of the atmosphere before Homo sapiens.
(To clarify, i think this question is far from settled. But i think the idea that Homo sapiens will be smaller-impact than expected is more likely than the scenario that historical gods are representations of unknown prosperous civilizations.)
If we look on humans as on typical species, we could use typical estimate of species life expectancy, which is several million years, and use it as human life expectancy. It is not bad.
But humans are definitely in the special point of their history and they could create a competitor soon (post humans or AI) and doesn’t look good. Competitors are one of the main ways how species go extinct.