From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Jul 27 1999 - 15:27:00 MDT
>
> In a message dated 99-07-27 15:37:42 EDT, Billy wrote:
>
> > I hereby challenge anyone to come up with a disaster, natural or
> > artificial, that could reasonably be expected to render an advanced
> > spacefaring species completely extinct.
> >
> > For purposes of clarification:
> > 1) The target civilization is assumed to have self-sustaining colonies in
> > several solar systems spread across a volume of at least a few dozen cubic
> > light-years.
This isn't necessary. I believe that a "near"-nanotech/AI capable civilization
based on a single "home-world" cannot be eliminated if it has a "minimal"
defense posture (requires a strong belief or actual knowledge that
non-friendly ETs may exist). [We do not currently have such a
minimal defense posture.]
> >
> > 2) The target civilization is assumed to have advanced robotics, genetic
> > engineering, non-sentient AI, and other such technologies. Just to give
> > exterminators a sporting chance, we'll pretend that nanotechnology and
> > sentient AI don't exist.
This makes no sense. Nanotechnology has a high probability of development
for tech-civs (since it is useful). Sentient-AI should also develop unless
actively prevented due to the dangers it may pose. In any case non-sentient
AI is better for "reconstruction"/"revenge" than sentient AI since sentient
AI can change its program. If you want to impose these restrictions, you
probably need a fundamentally different universe with different physical
laws (to make nanotech or AI very difficult).
> GBurch1@aol.com said:
>
> Not fair, Billy. If I can't use nanotech and at least minimal AI, I can't
> wipe out the target. WIth them, I think I can.
>
You can probably wipe out the "primary" target(s), but unless you want to
remain on the run for the next ump-teen billion years, you have to
do atomic disassembly, radiation inactivation or temporal-spatial
removal of *ALL* possible revenger-bots in the system. Since a
revenger-bot can probably be on the order of a few microns cubed and
you easily have trillions of them in suspend mode. Eliminating them is
very difficult. Atomic disassembly/irradiation take lots of energy and
time. Temporal-spatial removal (by importing black holes) probably
generates gravity waves that provide advance warning.
The challenge does lead to another interesting question:
What is the most "defensible" architecture for an SI?
I would argue that it is the most "dispersed"/"stealthy"
configuration. That would seem to imply that the most
"natural" (unengineered) systems are those that would
provide the greatest protection. There would be nanotech
micro-SIs scattered all over the solar system being very
careful to make all energy absorption & emissions look
natural (e.g. heat from the gravitational collapse
of Jupiter or a planet's molten core). Communications
would have to be low-energy, directed and as white-noise-like
as possible. It is clear that there is a trade-off between
maximal intelligence and minimal detectability.
There must be an interesting divergence point in the development
of SIs/ETCs where they decide to go the visible/stealth route.
If you are "visible", you want to have available huge energy
stores, massive seek-and-destroy capabilities, revenger-bots
for may parsecs around your stars/worlds, etc. If you are
"stealthy", you want to develop slowly, leaving things just
as they would normally appear to an outside observer.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:35 MST