/sci/ — From a scientific standpoint, should the human species be pr

>>16995835 (OP)
Science doesn't have a standpoint goober. It's an assembly of abstract human ideas about reality.

>>16995863
Cool. So what is science's abstract idea about the human species' continued existence?

>>16996558
The current scientific consensus on humanity is that it's gay and lame, we should get rid of it and start over from scratch.

>>16996564
If we all die odds are we reincarnate as a race which is not as fake nor gay. Our extreme score on these two axes means it's almost guaranteed a stochastically determined existence will be better. Scienced.

>>16996567
after a thorough examination of mankind's sins and the bhavachakra science has determined that humanity will be reincarnated as some sort of disgusting grub or parasite
that is after we finish our 4,500,000,000 years in hell suffering torments, according to calculations

>>16995835 (OP)
Science can only work as a tool to allow you to get what you want. You cant answer that question because you did not provide what your ultimate goal is, if your goal is to promote death and suffering then you dont need science to answer that question, if your goal is to make everyone happy then yes, humans should be preserved because you dont have human happiness without humans.

>>16995863
>science is an assembly of abstract human ideas about reality.
how does one validate these ideas, scientifically speaking?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKdfReE0qds&ra=m

>>16995835 (OP)
Humanity is a genus, not a species.

We don't cry over the Neanderthals or Homo erectus, so there is no moral barriers to bioengineering improved "humans".

>>16996558
we could be the only complex culture and civilization in our entire universe. if you don't want to preserve what could be the only thing like us that the universe ever shat out then idk what to tell you.