Damien posted a pointer to Robin's paper:
http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html
I suppose I must respond with my critique of this
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/GreatFilter/index.html
(Damien -- shame on you for not posting both sides of the
argument.)
I will freely admit that there may be counter-arguments
that Robin may have posted (an archive search would be
in order). The fundamental point of debate seems to
revolve around how much "current resources" you are
willing to discard for how much "future resources" you
may obtain. This is tied ultimately to the evolutionary
levels at which individuals choose to, or are constrained
to, limit themselves.
A solar system dominant Matrioshka Brain may dictate
that interstellar colonization is forbidden. Sub-solar
system dominant Jupiter Brains may determine that only
rare opportunities for bifurcative reproduction are
useful.
I will maintain my position that the value of interstellar
travel or communication must be significantly discounted for
the initial costs of achieving it and the value of
maintaining it. People who think otherwise are stuck
in anthropocentric viewpoints of the advantages or benefits
of "colonization".
The New Hampshire state motto "Live Free or Die" should be
modified in light of the scale of the universe --
"Live free, alone, ill-informed, and sub-optimal or die".
Freedom and/or security have their costs. The fundamental
question is whether or not the willingness to accept those
costs concurs a selective advantage that is likely to provide
dominance in the universe.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:13 MDT