From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 13:51:59 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually, successors of expansive, high sustainable reproduction species
>>>will rule most of visible universe. This might be not everything, but it's
>>>damn close.
>>>
>>We make a lot of assumptions in such projections. I doubt very
>>
>
> Actually, we only make two assuptions: life being able to survive and
> propagate across interstellar space. It doesn't have to be intelligent
> (though it helps, at least for nucleation), in fact iterated selection of
> wavefront organisms tends to generate very streamlined pioneers.
>
> All they have to do is to be able to navigate across empty
space, and to
> use whatever resources (nucleosynthesis makes for pretty
homogenous
> substrate, local variations in concentration and postprocessing
> nonwithstanding) they find to make copies of itself. This
requires no more
> smarts than bacteria, insects at best.
>
>
Wonderful. You are speaking about letting loose free
replicators to overrun all real-estate within reach. By what
conceivable right or justification would a sentient species ever
do such a thing?
>>much that many highly advanced species continue to value
>>reproduction so endlessly as to rule the visible universe. I
>>
>
> They don't rule. They just live there. And they're hardly advanced, see
> above. (But the most hardcore pioneers obviously need an advanced culture
> to spawn, which they leave far behind, since if there is hard vacuum life,
> it is limited to passive transport, which is slow).
>
>
>>doubt that many fail to outgrow such a power trip fantasy. I
>>
>
> You're anthromorphising here.
>
We are what we are, sentient and hopefully responsible beings.
If we create and loose such a thing then we are responsible for
it. What they are is of our own design and invention. We
cannot duck choice by ignoring what we are and what we decide to
do via calling it "anthromorphising".
>
>>bet that most of those with enough wisdom to actually survive
>>the experience of very high technology find that there are other
>>
>
> We don't need a very high technology in order to colonize space. Arguably,
> with enough investments into R&D and launches three decade old technology
> is sufficient to live off planet sustainably. Once you're forced to live
> on whatever you can wrestle from a hostile place, there is considerable
> drive to enhance the technology.
>
>
>>things of higher value than expanding endlessly and attempting
>>to rule everything.
>>
>
> I don't see how applying human value systems (monkey are funny that way)
> to not even sentient processes helps us here.
>
If we build these "not even sentient processes" then human
values very much are at work in deciding if this is a reasonable
and sane thing to do. If we claim that they are not then we run
the danger of saying "the technology made us do it" or "the
technology got away from us and did this." I don't think either
one of these is very valid or mature. Do you?
= samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:40 MST