Lecture

Johan Manteau The Netherlands
In his speech John Zarnecki points to the responsibility of mankind to think about the continuity of his species in terms of threats like asteroids destroying life on earth, or other possible threats which could wipe out life on earth in a very short period of time. While this kind of far reaching thinking currently mainly exists on the agenda of people like John, being a specialist on this area, it is important to think about the consequences when this idea gets more widely spread. First of all there is the fact that such a responsibility lays a huge burden on mankind in terms of technical development and money involved (which all depends on labour). To say it bluntly: mankind has eternal work to do, prepare another planet to make it a place where they can live, and yet they are not ready, for the case that the solar system is where the new planet is located might be in danger we have to explore more planets. And yet more work might be at hand, because who knows, we might have to look for another cosmos, the one we live in also might be in danger at some point in time. If one thinks an endangered cosmos might be a bit overdone as an argument, you just have to think about what people who lived a few centuries ago might think about this whole discussion. In short, an eternal 'look ahead' burden has been placed on mankind. Continuity (quantity in length of time) goes before quality? One could think: what about the responsibility to make life for every human as good as possible right here and now a top priority? Surely the choice is not all that easy considering the fact that we are able to look into the future, that through science we have the possiblity to see and act upon major threats more and more, having knowledge which previously supposedly was placed in the hand of a higher being. Secondly, the responsibily for continuity in such long terms is taken for granted without any arguments. It seems like an atheistic argument being a reflection of a more spiritual concept named 'immortality'. But what is the basis of the argument, 'if we can, we must'? As English is not my native language, my apologies for errors in grammar and choice of words.