From: Alintelbot@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 26 1999 - 22:30:11 MDT
John Clark writes:
>>Assuming that they _wanted_ to engineer the cosmos.
>To repeate, "they" don't need to do anything, all it would take is one
individual
>deciding that the Universe wasn't quite the way he'd like it to be.
I understand exactly what you're saying. My problem is not with the
scenario, per se, but rather with the following assumptions. I'm not
claiming that any one poster endorses all of these, but they're certainly
prevalent.
1. Alien civilizations using highly advanced nanotech are going to have
goals and ambitions that we can readily understand, even from our current
state-of-the-art. I find this premature. I'm _all_ for speculation, so long
as it's addressed as such. But too many posts have simply said "this is the
way it is," clinging to the nanotech scenario with such intensity that I find
it sort of absurd.
2. Alien civilizations are necessarily going to be more rational than us. I
agree that a lot of them will be. But the "reasoning" here is that, if
they're rational, they'll wait until they develop a sophisticated
nanotechnology before they dare step out of there solar system. We just
don't know enough to make pronouncements about this. For heaven's sake, we
have yet to even upload a person's mind. One possible reason flesh-aliens
may choose to travel bodily (and I'm not excluding genetic engineering) is
because they want to experience the thrill of discovery firsthand, not
through sentient proxies.
3. The prevailing idea of late is that not only will alien civilizations
employ advanced nanotech, but they will necessarily use nanotech to perform
megascale projects visible at galactic/intergalactic distances. I agree that
we should be looking for such structures. But the assertion that since we
haven't seen any structures (at least, not immediately recognizable as such)
_ intelligent aliens don't exist_ is an imaginative and intellectual failure.
We have a long history of making "aliens" out to be advanced versions of
ourselves. This is fine, as long as it's grounded in the realization that
said "aliens" are thought experiments, extrapolations of ourselves from a
single point in technological history. On the other hand, I can imagine
enormously intelligent aliens who might very well scoff at the sort of roles
we've been assigning them (assuming, of course, they could even _understand_
such roles).
>My friend, any technology that has the awesome power of Nanotechnology will
>have religious implications. This fact makes some people uncomfortable. So
be >it.
This is debatable. Some alien cultures may well interpret nanotech
religiously. But I tend to think that any culture who can develop and use
nanotech will have surpassed the need for such primitive devices.
>Like permanently stimulating the pleasure centers of their brain? There's
>no disputing matters of taste but personally I don't find a civilization of
>junkies to be very interesting.
I don't either. But I wasn't referring to rats pressing levers; rather,
something the likes of which we haven't yet conceptualized. And I firmly
think that there are evolutionary pathways the likes of which even us
extropians haven't mapped out in all their intrinsic complexity.
>My ideas are certainly crazy, the only question is, are they crazy enough
>to be true?
Sure! My only real objection here, and let me reiterate, is that I'd be
really surprised if the nano-scenario was the only one at work in our galaxy.
And since we haven't yet seen evidence for the megascale clues predicted by
this scenario, it's a real shame to see list members announcing that _there
are no aliens_--the proclamation of a dangerously fragile ego, in my opinion.
Perhaps even more upsetting to me is the cowardly add-on "well, even if
there _are_ aliens, if they don't use nanotech, they aren't interesting." I
recommend we leave the definition of "interesting'" up to individual posters
instead of cramming it down others' throats.
--Mac Tonnies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:35 MST