←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
544 points mooreds | 5 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 1.015s | source
Show context
neom ◴[22 Oct 24 00:08 UTC] No.41909872[source]▶
Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)
replies(8): >>41910015 #>>41910437 #>>41910440 #>>41910444 #>>41910670 #>>41910845 #>>41911871 #>>41912134 #
wayoverthecloud ◴[22 Oct 24 01:59 UTC] No.41910437[source]▶
I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.
replies(2): >>41910601 #>>41911668 #
imchillyb ◴[22 Oct 24 02:25 UTC] No.41910601[source]▶
So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random.

Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this.

Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it?

Randomness should have error correction, as it's random. Doesn't seem to though.

replies(6): >>41910671 #>>41910727 #>>41911203 #>>41911218 #>>41911587 #>>41911788 #
1. phito ◴[22 Oct 24 06:01 UTC] No.41911587[source]▶
Ecosystems do adapt. They look broken to us because of our ridiculously small life span.

That's why I dislike framing climate change actions as "saving the planet". The planet will be just fine. We won't.

replies(2): >>41911745 #>>41912024 #
2. caf ◴[22 Oct 24 06:32 UTC] No.41911745[source]▶
You could think of it in the sense of "saving money" - if you're a notorious spendthrift, the money hasn't actually disappeared, but it's of no use to you anymore.
3. shiroiushi ◴[22 Oct 24 07:29 UTC] No.41912024[source]▶
"The planet" is really just a ball of mostly iron and silicates. Of course it'll be fine no matter what. What's important is what's on the surface, namely lifeforms and the biosphere. They're what make this orb so special. Climate change will harm humans, sure, but not just us: it'll harm many other species too, ones which can't adapt fast enough.
replies(1): >>41912122 #
4. conductr ◴[22 Oct 24 07:47 UTC] No.41912122[source]▶
It’s happened before, life will prevail and eventually thrive again in some other format. I think fully eradicating life from earth will be quite difficult even if we tried. Perhaps when we get swallowed by our sun or some similar event.
replies(1): >>41912145 #
5. shiroiushi ◴[22 Oct 24 07:51 UTC] No.41912145{3}[source]▶
Climate change, even in the worst case, won't come remotely close to eradicating all life. It won't even eradicate humans (though it'll suck for people living on the coasts or in Florida). Even the very worst imaginable catastrophe wouldn't eliminate the various single-celled organisms and extremophiles.

But there are a lot of larger species that are at risk. Maybe I'm just species-ist, but I'm more concerned about things like various bird or mammal species than I am some bacteria.