From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 22:33:03 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Hal Finney wrote:
>
>
>
>>Maybe part of the issue is, why is the civilization expanding? IMO we
>>
>
> Because it's the natural behaviour for uncorralled populations of
> self-replicating agents in a three dimensional substrate. Isn't it
> obvious?
No, it is not obvious because our behavior in this matter is
what we choose. It is not a given that we will be have like
simple self-replicating agents to the degree you project. Since
it is a matter of decision, the question of "Why?" naturally arises.
There is also the question of "Why?" related to the motives of
our expansion. Depending on the specific motives different
means and attendant actions may be called for.
>
>
>>have to look beyond traditional reasons like population pressure from
>>a 3% biological growth rate. With super-advanced technology, people
>>
>
> Why are we talking traditional biology in the context of expansive
> species? Squishy stuff doesn't fare well in space.
>
Whether it is squishy or not the same questions arise.
>
>>will reproduce exactly as fast as they desire. If a civilization is
>>
>
> 1) people are irrelevant
>
Hardly, since we/they will design what comes next and decide how
to deploy it. Hopefully what comes next will be at least as
capable of intelligence and therefore of deciding its course.
> 2) no they won't, because anybody who stops reproducing and does not
> spread into space is irrelevant in the cosmic picture
>
This is no better than claiming that non-reproductive people on
this earth are irrelevant. No one said stop reproducing anyway,
they asked why reproduce to the extent of constantly occupying
more and more territory and under what circumstance and
constraints it was possible and meaningful to do so.
>
>>expanding, it's because they want to. It's because they believe in
>>expansion, and they inherently value increasing their territory and
>>their population.
>>
>
> Bacteria don't believe in anything in particular, yet bacterial lawns
> spread just fine.
>
We are not bacteria. So what do we decide to do and support?
>
>>These people believe that spreading life into a dead universe makes it a
>>better place, and frankly I agree with them. Beings who have some such
>>psychology will come to dominate the expansion, so this is the kind of
>>attitude I see as driving the spread of life. They will make a strong
>>effort to move into adjacent, dead galaxies and bring them to life.
>>
>
> The reasons don't really matter. Anyone who is not expansive is pretty
> much invisible.
>
So size does matter heh? There may be quite highly developed
civilizations out there that only occupy very little territory.
There is a bit of a question of quality and not just quantity.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:44 MST