From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 00:17:32 MDT
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Yes Eugene, I have to agree, you perhaps more than anyone else on the
> list can assume ANYTHING. But fortunately since this is the
> EXTROPIANS list (and not sci.astrology) you have to get the rest of us
> to believe that the assumptions are reasonable.
And the same applies to you as well, naturally. Reasonable is the key
word: you have to demonstrate a mechanism by which the world as a whole (a
century from now a world could be something lightdays across) will stop to
breed. Suddenly. Sustainably. And stay within the narrow confines (a
region, a continent, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, a group of them,
this universe (maybe)).
> Now, you've argued the creation of this rather elaborate system for
> interstellar and intergalactic travel (multi-star fusion drives
> and antimatter deceleration capabilities [really not necessary
> if you are just dropping off seeds]). Fine.
Capability for relativistic interstellar travel is a side effect of the
same technologies enabling your m-brains: circumstellar clouds of hardware
which can part-time act as phased array radiators, pushing a gray sail
probe (or several of them simultaneously) using a tiny fraction of the
solar output. In terms of resources, it's chump change.
> But you haven't explained *why* any rational individual not
> under the influence sex hormones would want to do this?
> (It seems like a lot of work even if one *is* under the
> influence of sex hormones.)
If you're susceptible to a meme XY which reduces your fertility this is a
negative-fitness trait. If your brand of ratio will stop make you breed,
your brand of ratio is well on the way towards extinction.
I haven't noticed the geeks breeding furiously.
> I'll note that I believe that the current ExI board is currently
> childless. So are 6 of the 7 siblings and cousins of my branch
> of the Bradbury family. I think if we did a survey of the
> Extropian list we would find a rather significant redirection
> of the procreation drive into other areas. [This is not in
> any way intended as a slight against people on the list who
> are parents -- my hat is totally off to you.]
We're weird. We're not running this place. There's no evidence that people
like us will end up running the next iteration of the rat race. (Btw, I
don't mind to breed).
> *But* if as civilizations mature and as extended individual
> longevity becomes a realistic prospect -- and the drive to
> procreate becomes muted (as outlined in Clarke's "Against
Fertility rates are not homogenous across populations. Anything which will
make you breed will succeed on the long run.
> the Fall of Night") then you have a real problem justifying
> *why* any civilization would invest so much time and energy
> into constructing the means of the Gotterdammerung/Ragnarok.
> [Tip of the hat to Google since it lets me bring German/
> Scandanavian mythology into the discussion... :-)]
>
> Why on earth would anyone sow the seeds of their own undoing?
That's a very negative way to talk of one's children ;)
> The minute you or Anders or Max start cloning a million
> copies of yourself and building interstellar arks do you think
> I'm going to sit idly by saying "Gee, isn't that nice."?
The moment a (sentient or nonsentient) subsystem
0x070c53cfb38c834acf175e52e0b2e3a5dfe292b9 about 1.3 lightdays away
decides to a little a-exploring alarum bells go all over the place, and
everybody rushes off to intercept it?
> The only way your scenario holds any water is if a
> leading edge adopter takes control of most of the
> matter and energy in a local system (e.g. one of the
> outcomes of Robin's "If Uploads Come First") and ruthlessly
> squashes any other remotely sentient intelligence.
Actually, it's the opposite. Your scenario (everyone stops breeding, and
goes into self-corral mode) requires that. Mine assumes that things go on
as before (only more so).
> Then it has to be in a galaxy where there are either no
> other civilizations at a comparable or greater level of
> development or it has to expand in such a way that it
> has the capability of crushing any opposition it encounters.
I assume that every culture which acquires space capability will
essentially go expansive (with very few exceptions, which are pretty much
irrelevant, because no one is ever going to meet them).
> The "Crushing the Opposition" scenario is very much different
I'm assuming a (very high) plateau in capabilities (once you have mature
nanotechnology, it's hard to improve upon that), and logistics favouring
local cultures. A fly can only eat an elephant by stealth.
> from the "Colonizing Natural Systems" scenario. One of the
> consequences of sending out dumb systems for colonization is
I didn't say they're dumb systems, and the first probe is a bootstrap.
You'll need to have the same hardware on the other end if you want to
deccelerate efficiently, or large antennas if you travel lightly (as
photons in a multi-GBps beam).
> that you have alerted the opposition of your intent. Quite
> suddenly "free for the taking" has become much less so.
Which opposition? The opposition at home is hiding under the bed, afraid
to breed. The people/systems who left the planet are not the opposition.
They're pioneer themselves, and they're replicating. Look back in your
past, Robert. The genie has been out of the lamp for megayears already.
> We are talking millions if not billions of worlds in
> various stages of development in each galaxy. Unless you
There is no evidence for that. Across gigalightyears we don't see any
activity, just natural phenomena.
> can make the case that "intelligent life" is extremely hard
> (rare) -- something that you cannot guarantee without
> a complete "real time" survey of your environment --
If life amplifies, life's metabolism is a beakon impossible to miss. We
don't any such beakons. You say life doesn't amplify, I stick to Occam.
> I would propose that your strategy is extremely risky.
> An intelligent, rational civilization would not risk
> really annoying its neighbors. Therefore your proposal
You assume there are neighbours. If there are neighbours which have
comparable capabilities (and, Somehow, are nonexpansive) you can't annoy
them with a few probes. They will absorb them, and send you a polite note
to send more, since those were yummy.
> only seems relevant to describe an emotionally driven
> irrational civilization.
Welcome to the emotionally driven, irrational reality. (Remember, even
Spock had his Pon Farr moments).
> An interesting concept because it raises the question of
> whether an Extropic civilization should seek to eliminate such
> unextropic civiliztions.
Notice that in order to achieve that you need to colonize the cosmos,
albeit invisibly. Maybe there's a few dormant probes floating through this
system, waiting to pounce.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST