From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 07:37:24 MDT
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> The very same argument goes for reproduction, however. Thus this reasoning
> cannot untangle the Reproduce vs Self Preserve dilemma.
Reproduction involves taking matter in disorganized state and
turning it into an organized state (which is extropic). Self
preservation involves taking matter in an organized state,
maintaining it and presumably extending it. So in my mind
it becomes a question of whether the value of exploring an
unexplored development vector is worth more than extending a
currently developed vector. It a subjective value judgement IMO.
> I think that Eugene's position is stronger than Robert's, not because either
> strategy is correct, but because it is not actually clear how to decide
> which is correct. I surmise that there would be civilisations which would
> follow both paths.
But following the reproduction vector means making a conscious decision
to limit the development of the vector you are on. Unless of course
there are natural limits to how far vectors can be developed (i.e.
limits to intelligence, memory capacity, longevity, etc.). Then it
might be interesting to simply fully develop all possible vectors
to their maximal potential as rapidly as possible. Then we are done.
End of story.
> If even a few percent of
> civilisations decides to send out spores, the result should be a floodfill
> of the galaxy. Those who do not reproduce become a very small minority.
No. You are assuming the offspring make the same choice as the parents
(to reproduce) -- there is no "law" that says that will occur. Further
you assume that the non-reproducers do not execute a system claim and
sterilization strategy. One could easily execute a seed strategy which
populated a system not with "intelligence" but with seeds capable of
eliminating any incoming not-from-the-same-tribe seeds.
This approach makes sense if sending resources back to a parent system
for use is expensive. In that case you want to "claim" the resources
so others don't walk off with them but leave them where they are until
one gets sufficiently close to utilize the resources without wasting them.
> And how do you go out to stop the wavefront of exponential replication? You
> would have to be everywhere at once... you'd have to take over all the
> matter. How do you do that?
You don't -- you only take over matter that within your light horizon
can be ascertained to be "unallocated". Once a system is occupied
the energy/matter within trump any incoming seeds so colonization is
effectively prevented.
> Probably there is only one way to do it. You must replicate.
Yes, but you don't need to replicate much to trump anything that
can be sent in your direction.
> The basics seem to be that
> - It is very cheap to send seeds
Eugene has claimed this but I don't think the case is that solid.
The microwave strategy doesn't work well at all (due to beam divergence).
A pellet strategy would work better but I'm still questioning his
shielding approach (the calculations Spike once did suggested this was
an expensive proposition).
> - Seeds could potentially be a threat
> - Other people's seeds are most likely a very much larger threat
More matter & energy trumps less matter & energy. Sending matter
and energy at high velocities is expensive. Whomever occupies
the system first presumably trumps any latecomers.
> There are so many possible reasons to replicate. Ideology, Proactive
> defense, distributed backups (of a sort). As long as it makes sense to even
> one competent civilisation to do it, it should take over everything.
Distributed backups don't really work over interstellar distances.
Claiming resources seems to make sense. But then you aren't creating
"offspring" that represent future competitors.
Of course if there are limits to the effective size of intelligences
then claiming more matter may be relatively pointless. As I pointed
out in the MBrain discussions -- one wants to get smaller not bigger.
Perhaps our perspective of going out and claiming resources is an
inherently anthropomorphic perspective that is due to our very
limited size scale perspective (mm to km). Once we become more
virtual we may discover that it is really rather irrelevant.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:54 MST