From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 23:40:18 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
>>Assuming of course that we don't screw with stars that already
>>have life around them and leave room for that life to also grow,
>>I have no great problem here. Except that I find it odd that I
>>am accused of "bubris" [hubris, sorry] when I speak of tuning
>>our economic system more realistically and appropriately to
>>what we wish to accomplish yet you believe it is only natural
>>and right that you speak about colonizing every star in the
>>galaxy and even having entire galaxies obey your whim. Something
>>is just a tad out of kilter here. Don't you think?
>>
>
> I'm probably not being inconsistent. We know for certain
> that re-designing economies and enormously complicated
> human societies is beyond our ability. We can only nudge
> here and there a little, as you'd probably agree.
>
No, I do not agree. We disigned the current systems or at least
the seeds that evolved to what they are now. Some of the
fundamental assumptions behind those systmes are increasingly in
question, such as scarcity vs. abundance. There is no way, if
such fundamentals are changing, that we can refuse to rethink
our economic systems and societies because of supposed
ineptness. To not rethink them in the face of such change would
be irresponsible and doomed to failure. It will, of course,
help a lot if we can get a lot brighter and more able to work
smoothly together as we are dealing with these inescapable and
difficult questions.
A little nudge here and there will be grossly insufficient when
the very basis of the system has changed.
> But bringing life to the cosmos appears relatively straight-
> forward. Uploaded entities can be cloned at will, and our
> own solar system contains enough resources to target many
> thousands of other stars, which in turn can target all the
> rest. So this task is not *impractical* as is re-designing
> our economy (say to get rid of capitalism).
>
This seems like a fantasy to me. Uploading is enormously more
complex than redesigning our economies based on new realities.
We have even clue how to do this (upload) or whether it will
work or whether we will have the computational power to tackle
it before SIs come out of the same technology. Assuming for a
sec that we do get all of that, exactly what kinds of economics
and societies will these beings weave? If it is too complicated
then what will they do? SOS? I don't think so. But you would
happily spread intelligences incompetent to address their own
social and economic difficulties (by your apparent assessment)
to "thousands of other stars"? And this is good and
reasonable - why?
> Now you wish to pass on, I'm sure, to the moral question of
> whether we should even attempt to colonize the universe.
Nope. I wish to question why we are so into running away into
notions of colonizing the galaxy while refusing or claiming
incompetence to address issues right in front of our noses.
> First, if it's already inhabited, then our efforts won't
> come to anything more than the efforts of ants to take over
> my house (I always win). If it's inhabited, but only by lower
> forms of life (e.g. algae and spiders), then it's high time
> that that matter learned how to really live.
>
I see. You will stomp on any ecosystem less advanced than your
own that you chance to encounter. Wonderful. If there are
advanced beings watching I sincerely hope they do not let us out
of our solar system before we develop better attitudes than that.
> But make sure that whatever answer to give to that apply
> consistently to you when you next decide to recapture your
> bathroom from its present insectoid and microscopic
> occupants.
Not relevant as that is "my bathroom" not thousands of solar
systems away. It is a competition with an ecosystem of a very
limited kind.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:42 MST