From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 21:54:56 MDT
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Yes, I can. If I try hard enough, I can assume about ANYTHING! Try me.
Yes Eugene, I have to agree, you perhaps more than anyone else on the
list can assume ANYTHING. But fortunately since this is the EXTROPIANS
list (and not sci.astrology) you have to get the rest of us to believe
that the assumptions are reasonable.
Now, you've argued the creation of this rather elaborate system for
interstellar and intergalactic travel (multi-star fusion drives
and antimatter deceleration capabilities [really not necessary
if you are just dropping off seeds]). Fine.
But you haven't explained *why* any rational individual not
under the influence sex hormones would want to do this?
(It seems like a lot of work even if one *is* under the
influence of sex hormones.)
I'll note that I believe that the current ExI board is currently
childless. So are 6 of the 7 siblings and cousins of my branch
of the Bradbury family. I think if we did a survey of the
Extropian list we would find a rather significant redirection
of the procreation drive into other areas. [This is not in
any way intended as a slight against people on the list who
are parents -- my hat is totally off to you.]
*But* if as civilizations mature and as extended individual
longevity becomes a realistic prospect -- and the drive to
procreate becomes muted (as outlined in Clarke's "Against
the Fall of Night") then you have a real problem justifying
*why* any civilization would invest so much time and energy
into constructing the means of the Gotterdammerung/Ragnarok.
[Tip of the hat to Google since it lets me bring German/
Scandanavian mythology into the discussion... :-)]
Why on earth would anyone sow the seeds of their own undoing?
The minute you or Anders or Max start cloning a million
copies of yourself and building interstellar arks do you think
I'm going to sit idly by saying "Gee, isn't that nice."?
The only way your scenario holds any water is if a
leading edge adopter takes control of most of the
matter and energy in a local system (e.g. one of the
outcomes of Robin's "If Uploads Come First") and ruthlessly
squashes any other remotely sentient intelligence.
Then it has to be in a galaxy where there are either no
other civilizations at a comparable or greater level of
development or it has to expand in such a way that it
has the capability of crushing any opposition it encounters.
The "Crushing the Opposition" scenario is very much different
from the "Colonizing Natural Systems" scenario. One of the
consequences of sending out dumb systems for colonization is
that you have alerted the opposition of your intent. Quite
suddenly "free for the taking" has become much less so.
We are talking millions if not billions of worlds in
various stages of development in each galaxy. Unless you
can make the case that "intelligent life" is extremely hard
(rare) -- something that you cannot guarantee without
a complete "real time" survey of your environment --
I would propose that your strategy is extremely risky.
An intelligent, rational civilization would not risk
really annoying its neighbors. Therefore your proposal
only seems relevant to describe an emotionally driven
irrational civilization.
An interesting concept because it raises the question of
whether an Extropic civilization should seek to eliminate such
unextropic civiliztions.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST