From: Billy Brown (bbrown@transcient.com)
Date: Tue Nov 02 1999 - 14:57:01 MST
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> No, when I look at this problem I'm not looking for "enforced" solutions
> (for the reasons you point out). I'm looking for logical solutions
dictated
> by the environment.
<snip>
> I don't assume there is an "enforced" Prime-Directive. I do assume
> (a) there really is nobody out there; or
> (b) the prime directive "followers" are our care-takers/observers; or
> (c) the non-prime directive "followers" haven't reached us (yet); or
> (d) there is virtually no point for a prime directive because we
> aren't of any interest or importantace to the ETs (i.e. convergent
> evolution creates a disinterest in non-space environment occupying
> creatures by space occupying creatures).
As the above list makes clear, you have a much bigger implicit assumption
that is very improbable, and therefore requires a great deal of
justification. Specifically, you are assuming that no SI ever wants to do
anything that would be especially visible to us. They don't disassemble
solar systems to build things, they don't reorganize galaxies to optimize
the mass distribution, and they certainly don't to any recognizable sort of
cosmological engineering.
> If (b) is true, my personal opinion is that they will suspend the
> rules when we are "interesting" to talk to. If one of those rules
> is that they be "invited to the party" (IR), then we should do that.
We've been doing that ever since we learned how to pray. If sincerity were
the key we'd already be talking. If correctly understanding what they are
is important we still have a long way to go. Either way, I don't see that
posting a message on the Internet is any more likely to work than striking
up a conversation with the nearest wall.
> Part of allowing evolution to occur "naturally" is to allow the
> brutality of [human] "nature" to takes its course. If they
> were around 65 million years ago and didn't off the dinosaurs
> they certainly didn't stop it either. It isn't easy to come
> up with a set of rules for when you can violate the prime
> directive. Numerous Star Trek episodes about that one.
What could possibly convince every single individual of every sentient
species within a billion light years to abide by such a code? The Prime
Directive is a human invention founded on the idea that all cultures are
equivalent and meaningful improvement in the human condition is not
possible. Neither of these propositions is true.
If primitive sentient life has value then allowing primitives to die while
they struggle towards understanding is immoral. If primitive sentient life
does not have value then why not convert the solar system into something
that does? Either way, you don't get the world we live in.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@transcient.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:41 MST