hal@finney.org writes:
> I don't see it as either a monoculture or a single controlling entity.
> Rather, there only has to be a consensus that replication is disastrous
Consensus on a (potentially very large and heterogenous) group of beings?
> and must be prevented. As long as the bulk of the power is held by
> agents with those views, replication by the others can be held in check.
Let's say we want to impose an autoreplication ban on all nonhuman
agents in the entire ecosphere. Now. Impossible? Sure. Given nano, you
can handle biology. But can you handle nano given nano? I don't think so.
> > > is viewed as a threat and is prevented. Some entities would like to
> > > replicate, but they cannot. Most do not want to replicate, and attempt
> > > to prevent others from doing so.
> >
> > A mechanism? Both for action, and how an evolutionary regime can be
> > stripped?
>
> Well, my first cut at the problem is that the majority would say that
> they would clobber those who reproduce without constraint.
The majority needs not only to agree, but also to enforce. I don't see
how a global replication ban on systems of all complexity scales can
be prevented. How to tell legitimate replication (failures will still
happen) from illegitimate ones? Extremely brittle architectures? But
how to get there (fashistiod control) from here (multimodal
diversity)?
Displaying the (meta)stability of an idealized state does not show
feasibility, if there is no traversible path from here to there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:39 MDT