Re: PROCREATION: to what end? (was: ASTRONOMY: Engineered Galaxy?)

From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 13:44:23 MDT


On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> I'll simply note that so far I don't see a rational argument for
> propagation over self-preservation. Eugene seems to be making a case

I'm arguing that self-preservation (or lack thereof) are intrinsically
outside of the ratio-domain. Why is going on living better than dying,
rationally? You can't answer that, without taking resort to an axiom
anchored outside of the realm of rationality. Unless your definition of
rationality includes these axioms, which is quite arbitrary.

> that randomly sowing seeds all over the galaxy is the best approach.
> I object -- most seeds never germinate. Many that do die for lack of

While "cheaper, better, faster" so far resulted in a fat track of failures
I don't see how a smart culture could fail to achieve a connect to a
well-mapped (if your optical instrument's aperture is lighthours across
you sure can examine something few lightyears away in much detail)
system, which you send a few 10^2 to 10^3 probes to. Which even ride
within the same beam corridor, as you can't track a single probe over
lightmonth distances.

> resources. We are still back to the same issue -- making the case
> that random vectors are more useful than directed and managed vectors.

It doesn't matter whether it's wild and strange or directed and managed.
May the best win (and they will).

> [I'll assert that vectors cannot be productively managed over long
> distances or large time delays. Given the freedom to think creatively

Absolutely. Which is why seeds must be autonomous. Your only cargo is your
pickled agenda, which is being expressed on the other end according to
what the blooming seedling sees fit. There will be surprises, of course.

> -- evolution will occur. Limit that freedom and what is the point?]
>
> There is also little evidence that random vectors aren't dangerous to
> the source of such vectors. We are talking "rational" beings and

Life is uncertain. "Worse is better" vs. "diamond-like jewel" has got a
point.

> behaviors here. Eugene are you really saying that you want to spawn
> offspring that will be more than happy to come back and lay you out in
> a pool of blood at Extro 77?

I'm not adamantly focused on my sustainable survival, no. I recognize that
we're almost always out of control, and are forced to make less than
perfectly informed decisions in face of pressing temporal constraints.
 
I refuse to become hypnotized by the faint possibility of a pool of my own
blood in my future.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:53 MST