On Mass versus Worth

“The world is a pretty big place, but when you compare it to the rest of the universe you realise just how insignificant you are.” —a silly idea, via  http://blazepress.com/2014/11/23-pictures-will-make-realise-insignificant/

It seems every time I encounter this idea I feel a need to rant against it: yes, materially—in terms of mass, volume, and density—we are pretty much inconsequential in the scope of the unthinkably vast universe. But since when is the worth or value of something determined solely by its dimensions or mass? The notion that nothing really matters because we are so unimaginably small is just flat out wrong. Because as massive and awe-inspiring as VY Canis Majoris may be, as long as it can’t think or feel, it’s less important than you are. In that, you know, you can think and feel. The Crab Nebula wouldn’t mean a thing if there weren’t someone sentient to see it and find it beautiful and inspiring. I guess it’s an extension of the old question about a tree falling in the forest, but with a finer point on it: if a tree falls in the forest and nothing sentient is around to care, does it matter?

Sentience is what imbues significance. Until we find evidence for other sentient life in the universe (which, given the infinity that is the universe, I think is probably pretty likely), I don’t see any way to justify considering humanity anything short of the most important thing in the known universe. So to that clever YouTube video or pop Internet article or 9gag philosopher that compares increasingly massive objects with Earth and then concludes, “NO, YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE,” I answer, “YES, I AM.”

And you know what? VY Canis Majoris has never once tried to contradict me.