From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 23:40:37 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>
>>everything in its path to itself, it also finds that it's squeamish
>>
>
> Why should the postbiology be so squeamish? Especially, in the face of
> economic pressure? (It's not just the people, it's the complete ecosphere
> they depend on -- a rather rambling and vulnerable structure).
Because some of the biological beings are sentient and ethics is
not as arbitrary as some may think? If the bio-beings don't
wish to upload then why is it likely the SI would upload them
regardless? The only remotely ethical reason I can see is that
they may otherwise be irretrievably lost and not be able to
develop further. Even from purely "economical" grounds it is
not at all obvious that the SI will really need the biosphere
convereted to something else to accomplish its purposes.
>
>
>>about converting people too, so it lets us keep the top .1 percent
>>of the planet. And then it uses your idea to perplex us:
>>
>
> Where will they get their power, if not radiated from space, and requiring
> receptacles on the planet surface? Why should they stick to grossly
> underutilized 0.01% of the planetary mass, instead of dissassembling and
> using 99.99% of it? (Of course it will eat the small rocks and
> planetesimals first, but why should it then balk at disassembling this
> place?)
>
Because it does not destroy other living sentients when there
are other choices.
> (I realize this thread is tongue in cheek, but some people might not aware
> of this).
I don't deal well with conversations that are not meant.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:39 MST