From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 00:44:59 MDT
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 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
Okay, let's try it again. Which is this "we"? Currently, there are several
10^9 beings down here. Are you speaking for every single of them? Hardly,
since you certainly don't speak for me. The question is: what can you do
about it?
So this is a question of enforcement of certain bans (assuming, there is a
ban, which is not a given, since we're living in a market, which would
just love means of production producing themselves). Absolute enforcement
over geological periods of time is provably impossible. A single failure
to contain a self replicator anywhere in the visible universe should
become very rapidly amplified to visibility on ridiculously large
distances.
> simple self-replicating agents to the degree you project. Since
> it is a matter of decision, the question of "Why?" naturally arises.
Rather, it's a question of "why not?". God knows monkeys have tried and
done far silliar things than attempting to build deep space capable
self-replicators. Given the ROI, I consider that an extremely worthwhile
investment. (Many are not just considering, but also twitching and
salivating at the prospects).
> 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.
Exactly. Billions of beings with millions of motives.
> > 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.
No, since squishy can't travel as hard and is hence selected out rapidly.
If you seed a galactic dish with squishies, and walk over to the other
end, and wait there, you won't see any squishies in the wave that hits
you. In fact, you probably won't find any squishies even in the nucleation
spot.
> Hardly, since we/they will design what comes next and decide how
> to deploy it. Hopefully what comes next will be at least as
Collectively, we don't decide. Things happen. If you want to twist words,
and assume we collectively want and decide something it is to multiply and
to spread far and wide. It's what life is all about.
> capable of intelligence and therefore of deciding its course.
It is perfectly possible to lose intelligence in the course of
adaptation/speciation/radiation. It is not always the trait selected for,
though we like to think of it that way. Last time I looked bacteria were
doing very nicely.
> This is no better than claiming that non-reproductive people on
> this earth are irrelevant. No one said stop reproducing anyway,
Go back two megayears. See some tribes of hominids. Some of them
reproduced worse than others. Guess who are you descended from?
Look around. See lots of random life spread through space. Go forward two
gigayears. Guess descendants of whom is owning the place?
Yep, the meek shall inherit the Earth. The less meek all the rest of it.
> 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.
Most people think that making babies is possible and meaningful. I don't
think this is a coincidence.
> We are not bacteria. So what do we decide to do and support?
Collectively, we're about as smart as bacteria, as far as self-containment
is concerned. As a test, let's ask around who of us here will forever want
to remain on this planet. Or even in this solar system.
I won't. Let others speak for themselves. Assuming, there are several of
people sharing the sentiment, how are you going to keep us here?
> > 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.
They're nice folks, sure. The problem is that if anyone comes your way, or
you come their way it won't be them, with a probability of almost unity.
There might be a few of them, but they might as well not be there. How do
you detect an invisible pink elephant on this planet? There is one. Can
you find it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:45 MST