Seriously, the "sapiens" part in the name of our species is a bit of an exaggeration.
In evolutionary terms we have literally only just managed to build a technological society. Therefore it stands to reason we only recently evolved sufficient intelligence to do so. Otherwise we'd have done it sooner. In the grand scheme of things we're on the very lowest bottom level of the sentience hierarchy.
If there happen to be any other sentient species watching us, I can only assume they spend most of the time face-palming, head-shaking and eye-rolling.
We'd probably still be a dinosaur-populated planet if not for a random asteroid.
I'm personally not invested in the environment-preservation fight at all.
Life exists in this universe, it's a part it's nature and so is consciousness. Whether by design or by some random chance, it is self-evident that it exists. Not only that, you can find it adapted to the extremes of every environment it encounters.
Suffering is the engine of adaptation and everything we consider valuable has only come about through the immense suffering and sacrifice of those that have lived.
We, as conscious life, are the only known species which have the possibility to adapt to an environment outside of Earth. I believe, without any external spiritual input, that our responsibility is quite clear.
How much suffering is a function of the zero-sum game that is played in our (mostly) closed environment? Yes, expanding into space may increase the overall number of individuals suffering, but isn't it really suffering per capita that should be the measure?
Suffering isn't to be ignored and I believe seeking to reduce when possible is admirable and morally right... but to abdicate our responsibility to the process of life and allow it halt (which it will eventually on this planet)? Simply because some people feel bad about things sometimes? No, I'm not buying it for a second.
Or they see us as a natural phenomenon following similar patterns to other fledgling civilizations. We don't roll our eyes when a pathogen is so virulent it kills its host before it propagates.
I don't have proof of this, but I think most creatures have some amount of awareness, progressively decreasing as you descend the great chain of central nervous system complexity. Probably decreasing quickly at first, from humans to primates to regular mammals, and more slowly afterwards, until asymptotically vanishing into virtual nothingness as there's no complex nervous system to speak of anymore.
Perhaps we're at the bottom of the interval of what could be called truly self-aware consciousness, as opposed to, I don't know, maybe somnolent or lethargic or dimly awake consciousness. With that I would agree.
Which of course automatically raises the question: why should the ascending arc stop here? And what do the next levels look like? Probably impossible for us to imagine even in principle, but still.
I mean, you never know when you might need it, right? :)
Compared to what? I think you should be happy with what you've got, because it's the best we've ever seen. I'm happier with a species that could burn out, than one that could do no wrong. If there was a problem, yo, we'll solve it.
Perhaps that indicates that reason itself has some hardcoded fundamental limits.
I think that was meant to point to the individuals, not the species as a whole and that's exactly what causes this problem. But we're working on the hive mind as we speak.
Smallpox, eradication of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban...
At the moment we're a tribal species that builds colonies, we just haven't evolved to fit into them yet.
The problem is that there is no game theoretic advantage in cooperating to reduce CO2 unless everyone cooperates. If one large player (e.g. USA or China) or many small players do not cooperate then the incentive flips and it's actually in everyone's best interest to defect. If catastrophic climate change is going to happen anyway then you are better off burning as much CO2 as you want to build up your economy so you have a better chance of mitigating the damage. It's basically a variation on the prisoner's dilemma scenario.
Many countries have agreed climate change is a serious problem and have acted on it, and for a long time. The U.S. is a major exception. It's doable; the Republican Party in the U.S. is the problem.