Wisdom Builder

Three Tidbit Stories

Topic:

Ontology

The study of being itself.

MODE:

Speed: 1.00

Ontology.

3 random tidbit stories in about 3 minutes.

Idea 1.

A Ontology Story.

Mars Terraforming: Greening the Red Planet.

3825: 1,800 Years From Now (+/- 200 years)

By 3825, humanity will embark on terraforming Mars, a monumental task that will take decades, if not centuries, to complete. The primary objectives will be to create a livable atmosphere, oceans, and transform the top 18 inches of Martian soil into a fertile ecosystem, a stark reminder of the delicate biosphere on Earth. This process will involve introducing genetically engineered microorganisms, plants, and animals into suitable ecotopes, carefully crafted niche environments.

Cutting-edge technologies, including advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and possibly nanotechnology, will be crucial to this endeavor. Autonomous robots will release greenhouse gases, followed by the creation of a breathable atmosphere using advanced gas processing technologies. Self-reproducing robots may build machines that generate an atmosphere, and colossal tree planters could introduce genetically modified organisms that thrive in the harsh Martian environment.

As the planet becomes more hospitable, human settlers will arrive, bringing innovative solutions for managing the Martian environment, such as climate engineering and geoengineering. Over the next thousand years, Mars will transform into a thriving hub of human activity, complete with sprawling cities, lush ecosystems, and a vibrant culture. This technological leap, combined with sophisticated climate engineering techniques, will set the stage for the gradual rebirth of Mars, turning the red planet green.

Analysis: Setting the commencement of terraforming 1,800 years into the future allows ample time for humanity to perform and adjust the necessary societal, ethical, and environmental analyses, ensuring a careful and thorough approach to this monumental task. This reference point is admittedly a guesstimate, but reflects the immense scale of the challenge and is based on a our current technological trajectory. It relies on the continued rapid progress in fields like space exploration, renewable energy, biotechnology, genetics, and AI. Terraforming is not a one-time project but an ongoing transformation. Even after jumpstarting the Martian atmosphere, it would take centuries, perhaps millennia, for the planet to reach a stable and self-sustaining state. During this time, constant monitoring and adjustments would likely be required, ensuring the terraforming process continues on a desired trajectory. At this point, we’ll have two planets, both evolving life on separate evolutionary paths unless genetic modifications are used to keep them aligned.

I wrote that Ontology Story,

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

Idea 2.

A Ontology Story.

Emergence of the Great Apes (Great Apes LCA).

16.5 Million Years Ago (+/- 2 Million Years)

Tool potential begins, Neocortical expansion

660,000 Generations Ago

The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) of the Great Apes, a.k.a. the Hominidae family, marks a pivotal point in our evolutionary history, encompassing the origins of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. This ancestor species, likely existing between 15 to 19 million years ago, represents the shared lineage from which all modern great apes have diverged. Current evidence suggests possible candidates for this ancestor ranging from a species within the fossil genus Proconsul from about 19 million years ago to one in the genus Kenyapithecus, dating as late as 15 million years ago. The genus Proconsul survived and evolved from about 22 million years ago to about 18 million years ago in East Africa. Also in East Africa, the genus Kenyapithecus survived and evolved from about 16 million to about 14 million years ago, specifically in Kenya.

I wrote that Ontology Story,

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

Idea 3.

A Ontology FAQ.

Is flourishing for all just utilitarianism?.

No. But, “flourishing for all” shares utilitarianism’s concern for real-world consequences and human well-being. However, it rejects one of utilitarianism’s defining moves: combining welfare across people and making the best overall result morally decisive.

In classical utilitarianism, morality looks too much like a balance sheet. The goal is to maximize overall welfare across everyone affected. That sounds fair at first—everyone counts. But John Rawls famously pointed to a serious problem: this approach can fail to respect the “distinctness of persons.” If only the total matters, severe burdens placed on a few can be justified when enough benefits flow to everyone else.

The suffering and benefit belong to each person, and that matters.

TST treats the phrase “for all” differently. First,

for all means no affected person simply disappears from the moral field.

heir agency, interests, dignity, autonomy, and potential for flourishing continue to matter. Second,

for all does not mean adding everyone’s individual “flourishing score” into one maximized number.

That could too easily turn individuals into expendable pieces of a larger calculation. Mill’s own “no harm principle” helps fix this problem. In TST, morality is not reduced to net welfare — principles such as individual rights, fairness, personal autonomy, proportionality, duties, and moral agency retain their own constraining roles within the system. Outcomes matter, but they are not the only thing that matters.

There is a useful critical-thinking lesson here: similarity is not identity. Two ethical frameworks can both care deeply about consequences and universal human well-being while operating very differently. Utilitarianism seeks the best overall welfare outcome. TST keeps every affected person inside the moral picture and asks how we can move toward flourishing for all without simply sacrificing individuals to the total.

I wrote that Ontology FAQ,

and posted it to TST 1 month ago.

By Philosopher Michael Alan Prestwood