From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 10:24:30 MDT
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Sigh. We are back into the same old discussions again.
Exactly! But it's at least more fun proclaiming our undying alliance
towards the Elders of Zion, and plotting nefarious schemes towards dusting
white supremacists from air with outlook-modifying nanoware by swarms of
pretty attack butterflies (or, for extra demoralization, by armies of
buxom valkyrienes, led by Loki).
> Make the case that:
> (a) There is any point to expanding indefinitely given the low
> benefit that any information one receives delayed by many
The universe is less cerebrally oriented. All she has on his mind is sex.
> millions of years *and* the probability that "spawn" become
> competitors for oneself in a future resource limited universe.
How should we stop doing that, rather? The scenarios how one could end all
diversity, and arrest natural expansion are not many, and not very
convincing.
(Moreover, sex is more fun).
> (b) An expansion could succeed across intergalactic distances.
> Since the time for the development of civilizations and
> even singularities seems to be order of < 10,000 years
> then attempting to colonize anything beyond that light
> horizon would seem to be a complete waste of effort.
Waste of effort to you, but not to your children. And their children. And
their children's children. And their chi... erm.
> Resources in space are not *free*. They are more useful locally
They are free to take whoever picks them up first. Children are not free,
but are not that expensive, either. Plus, you're wired to like making
them.
> than they are in remote distant locations. If you are going to
> send them to remote distant locations you have to provide a
> justification for that (knowing they might mature as ungrateful
> children).
You'll notice that despite all the costs and risks people still continue
having children. Sure, you can contemplate rewriting the minds of billions
of sentient entities (most of them highly suspicious, and intrinsically
loth with anyone tinkering with their agendas), but this clearly a low
probability event, barring semidivine interventions (go away, Eliezer).
> One might colonize and control a galaxy with a single program
> (i.e. the only civilization developing within an ~100,000 -
> 1 million year period) but the odds of that situation being
> valid across a collection of galaxies seems very low.
All it takes is a single expansive nucleus to walk all over the place,
whether it's pristine stellar excreta, or less-than-power instances of
life. Interstellar jumps are a piece of cakes, intergalactic ones are only
marginally more complicated (basically requiring a different seed design
and propulsion strategy).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:51 MST