From: hibbert@netcom.com
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 18:53:08 MDT
[Well I only had this half-written before I was called away from my desk,
and now Greg has responded himself. But I don't see quite this point made
in Greg's message, so I'll send it even though it's been overtaken by
events.]
bradbury@aeiveos.com said:
> 1) Remote colonization by "unconscious", "undivertable" sub-SIs.
> 2) Colonization by unhappy sub-SIs looking to expand.
> 3) Colonization choices
Robert,
I think you're missing part of the point Greg was trying to point to from
Robin's paper "Burning the Cosmic Commons". If *any* civilizations produce
colonization, then the effects that Robin suggests will come to dominate
the expansion. If nearly all star systems are inhabited by SIs that
control all the matter at their star, then none of those entities are the
ones who will expand, and you can leave them out of the calculation except
as locations that gobble up probes.
Those that send out probes of whatever kind will colonize everything. The
first wave will be slow and low tech, but it'll be followed by a faster,
higher tech wave, and so it will continue. Like the pilgrims who came to
America, they'll be cut off from progress, possibly for the lifetimes of
the individuals involved. But if they have any sense of history, they'll
realize that later generations will be in contact with whatever galactic
civilization ensues.
Chris
---
C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings:
"A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for
Chris Hibbert something hands made, that's stood through storms and
hibbert@netcom.com wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may
last and matter."
http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert/home.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:03 MST