RE: Why most transhumanists will need to move to Mars

From: Chen Yixiong, Eric (cyixiong@myrealbox.com)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 07:56:07 MDT


Knowing how difficult it remains for a small population to achieve the scale of economics of a vastly larger one like the one on
like Earth, I have no argument against what you say. I do intend to test its possibility if I have a chance to do so. Who knows,
maybe we can even get 1 million people to move to space and form a mega-polis eventually to mine something really useful?

I do want to clarify that my position does not coincide with colonizing Mars to build the colony. I intend to build an independent
colony, making with hollowed out asteroid shells. To keep its distance, it will probably orbit opposite Earth aroudn the sun.

The main reason I don't suggest we remain on Earth lies with the "all eggs in one basket" argument. I already find this good enough
to seriously consider leaving Earth. The secondary reason that I had not elaborated, lies with the good possibility that governments
on Earth would want to exert control over their territories and places that they would have common interest in.

That could retard the development of societies with social structures so unpopular, no matter founded in logic or not, that a
coalition of governments (like the UN) might intervene to stop it. A social system that does not operate on rights might run afoul
of the UN Universal Human Rights Declaration, even if it works in a superior fashion than one that uses rights and provides great
satisfaction to its users. A society might operate in a very different way to conventional societies (if you remember the previous
part about the discussion on autistics).

[Before any of you want to argue with me if these possibilities have an basis in reality, I want to remind readers that I only want
to share possibilities, not to declare myself or anyone absolutely right on this issue. You will have enough to argue about rights,
but what if better systems can exist using another different method? How many of you would have actually tried to develop such
alternative systems? Again, I don't take an absolute position but a provisional one: As long as we have people dedicated to pursuing
both sides of the fork, we should have adequate protection from misconceptions. I suggest arguments for and against what fork to
consider should go to another thread dedicated to this topic.]

Even so, we will find it more likely that other nations would take an interest in the society and try to manipulate it to their
purposes. Imagine that you form a society to accelerate the coming of the Singularity. What if the world governments recognize the
threat to their existence well enough and proclaim that your society wants to develop a computational weapon (perhaps I should dub
it a weapon of mass intelligence) to take over the world? Perhaps they will put it in their worldwide treaties that such "weapons"
should not exist, and they would classify your society as a rouge state and might send some military devices to make you comply.

Maybe they will write in a universal rights declaration against creating AI sentient beings for the ostensible purpose of preserving
"ethics" and "humanity" because they fear for their existence, not because they hate technology and subscribe to the Luddite
paradigm. Maybe in a more subtle way, they can bring about some version of intellectual property rights against what you want to
develop and proclaim your violation of some patents or intellectual property. If they feel determined enough to stop you, they will
have their ways. Living on Earth only provides an open invitation for them to deploy their military assets around your society.

Earthlings seem to have an affinity for planet Earth, and had fought many wars in the past and even today over a microscopic
fraction of the universe, when they live in a universe extending at least 13 billion light years wide. I find that peculiar that
many of us confine our options to Earth based societies, especially when we have so much competition. With so many people squeezed
together, you might only worry about Luddites but you will have to fear the self-preservation tendencies of our societies. You
should fear also the terrorists that seek to destroy those unlike them.

Some of you here want to do things that will go against your governments. I can understand that feeling, with the Libertarian and
related ideals and paradigms that many of you have. Many of you would rather die fighting than die begging on your knees. I admire
your courage. However, I don't share the same paradigms as you.

Many of you have an adversity mindset, one that specifies that you might win and prevail over those against you. Everyone of us has
a paradigm, a way of thinking that we use to see the world and thus affects what we choose to do. When you fight, you put your
resources against your enemies instead of for your goals. Mother Theresa puts it best when she said she would not join an anti-war
protest, but will fully support a march for peace. Do you focus on what you can do when you worry about getting found out by the
Government and arrested for alleged crimes, or worse, "terrorism"?

To avoid the problems of starting a new society openly, you might decide to stay in your societies. Some of you think you can fight
your governments and bask in your ideals as heroes, but do the rest of your society support you? If they do not, and you prevail,
you will only make life unhappy for them. No matter how "Libertarian" and open-minded you proclaim yourself as, no matter how much
good intentions you have, certain people will just refuse to subscribe to your paradigms. Certain people would simply not want to
join your societies, period. Would you go against your ideals to force the unwilling people to join you?

[The core concept of the meta-federation idea I propose lies in recognizing the innate differences we all have, of mindset rather
than traditional superfacial differences like skin color, race and age. Many of what some of you write and sci-fi works have the
same concept, like in Diaspora (by Greg Egan) where the Coalition of Polis (of transhumanist intelligence) chose to sign a treaty of
non-interference with Flesher (i.e. humans with real flesh) societies rather than try to forcefully convert them to Transhumanism,
no matter how irrational it seems for the Fleshers to remain as they exist.]

Now, if you want to convert our Earth-based societies to a Transhumanist oriented one, you will have to make many changes to the
laws, regulations and other government related functions. Like the conversion of legacy systems to operate with modern technology,
the end result remains very fragile even if successful. You will have to make provisions for people who don't support your
paradigms, like arranging to allow them to emigrate to societies that they prefer to go to. You will have to phase systems out
slowly, design transition systems, handle all the irrationality that comes with such tasks. Even if your government gives you
support instead of your fighting it constantly, all these will take many years and decades to sort out. You have also have to
appease other governments that you won't do anything bad to them, especially if you all speak like radicals intent on forcing the
Singularity on everyone.

And then some of you call building a new society from scratch in space difficult? I hope you will also consider the difficulty of
converting a society with so many legacy systems too. After weighing this, it might seem worthwhile to seriously consider an opt-in
space based society so that you can bypass all these legacy systems and the trouble associated with conflicts.

<< So maybe we should start thinking of better business plans for space. >>

I agree, and I will start from Earth first. To spearhead the effort among people who want to live more freely in space, I have to
sharpen the theory, publicize my ideas (and Transhumanism), acquire enough resources to build the colony and sign up enough
interested people. Of course, if I can make it profitable (which I believe so), then I would make it so.

I don't intend any colony to get built before 2050, so perhaps the Singularity might had arrived and spared me the effort. At the
very least, the ideas I develop should also apply to Earth-bound Rational societies so it would not constitute a waste of effort. I
keep my options open, and for now I will work on the assumption that I will have to set up a space colony (or a few) eventually.

Maybe some of us interested can also check out http://lifeboat.com, a project I read about on the Net a year ago.

I look forward to a very exciting and challenging future. [And please don't flame me because I don't intend what I say to offend
readers.]



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:23 MST