From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 18:40:43 MST
On Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:19 PM Robert J. Bradbury
bradbury@aeiveos.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Technotranscendence (Daniel)
> forwarded this piece from Starship_Forum, I'm
> responding to both groups.
I forwarded your reply to Starship_Forum, since it did not appear there.
>> Dennis May determinism@hotmail.com wrote (to Starship_Forum):
>
>> Weapons of mass destruction change everything.
>> In space, the scale of mass destruction grows
>> without bound.
>
> No it doesn't. There are "effective" limits on everything.
> Even the most energetic events in space such as stellar
> collisions or gamma ray bursts have effective ranges.
> If they didn't we would have been wiped out long ago.
> See the Nov. 2002 issue of Scientific American, the
> article "When Stars Collide" for further discussion.
I believe Dennis got caught up in his own hyperbole here.
>> In space, the family truckster could be a kinetic
>> energy WoMD by its very nature. The power plant
>> to run farms could be a dual use producer of
>> fissionable materials for atomic weapons.
>
> I don't understand where you are obtaining the energy
> from. It sounds like you are planning on breeding
> elements lighter than uranium into uranium or other
> higher MW elements that are capable of fission. The
> most readily available power sources for this are light
> energy from a star (fusion) and local fusion reactors.
> This seems like it will be a very inefficient process.
I can't speak for Dennis here, but it sounds like you're sticking a
little too close to his example. I do think as any civilization spreads
out into space, it's weaponry will become more powerful. I think many
items will have dual use -- whatever they are. On this list, e.g., not
a few people are afraid of nanotech being used to make weapons or as
weapons.
Elsewhere, too, you mention GRBs and such. For an advanced enough
civilization, could these not be part of its arsenal? It mgiht require
planning and a lot of stealth or perhaps such a civilization might use
them years before its victims were advanced enough to detect and figure
out what was going on. (Certainly would make a good science fiction
story. I'm not so sure it's valid though. I'm only trying to play out
Dennis' view for all its worth.)
>> Mining equipment could steer a large rock down a
>> gravitational well and destroy whole civilizations.
>
> Not any "intelligent" civilization. An intelligent
> civilization where individuals seek to live indefinitely
> has to adopt a form of a distributed replicated
> intelligence.
This depends on it being possible. If it's possible, then it would be a
good way to go. However, this still leaves an out for Dennis' model
here. This is that civilizations get the hyperdestructive and
space-faring capabilities long before they become "intelligent." If
this is the path most civilizations take, then Dennis might have a good
model.
Also, there could be some path dependence in here. What I mean is
certain developmental paths foreclose others.
> (I pointed this out at the Extro 3 conference in 1997).
> This thought vector subsequently led to the design
> civilizations spanning solar system sized scales
> (e.g. Matrioshka Brains). The size limits for
> Matrioshka Brain civilizations powered by sol type
> (G) stars are around 3 light years in diameter. Hurling
> an asteroid or a comet at such a civilization isn't going
> dent its capacities even slightly, though it might annoy
> it (which is probably *not* a good idea).
I agree, though the problem is why haven't we spotted any M-brains or
the like?
Also, it would seem from Dennis' point of view, supercivilizations might
still see lower civilizations as potential threats. Why wait until they
become dangerous or rivalrous? If that's the case, then Dennis'
strategy is not so bad. Hide and don't take any chances. (Too late for
Earth, though, since we've been broadcasting our location for about a
century now.)
>> How can space tyrants disarm a populace when dual
>> use includes WoMD capabilities?
>
> This is still thinking too much along the lines of
> primitive human space travel. Things are quite
> different when one takes ones entire star system
> on the journey.
I think this is because he was thinking along the lines of human
development here. The point will still apply to larger civilizations.
I mean would there be tyranny among M-brains?
>> The next question is how to defend against
>> individuals and terror groups wielding these
>> same common industrial WoMD.
>
> Easy -- distributed, replicated intelligence. The actions
> of individuals or terror groups is pointless if they cannot
> destroy "all" of you. All they do by injuring part of you
> is annoy you. And as Khan observed, "Revenge is a
> dish best served cold".
You have to get there first. Such a group existing now would not have
to worry about this. Until we have that, then there's always the
possibility of WoMD attacks wiping out the only intelligences we know.
Future WoMD will no doubt be even stronger requiring more
countermeasures. For example, even "distributed, replicated
intelligence" can be detroyed if you destroy all the copies. Imagine,
if you will, that we come by this sort of technology -- to make
"distributed, replicated intelligence" -- tomorrow morning, but some
alien race hits Earth with a nice sized asteroid, one that would
basically vaporize the crust. It doesn't matter how many copies you
made of yourself if they're all on Earth. (Also, even if you put copies
in safe storage on a satellite, without the technology for them to do
anything, they might as well be dental records.)
>> It has to change the arrangement of human societies.
>> Aliens will have the same problem - hence my solution
>> to the Fermi Paradox - only those who hide live in
>> the long run.
>
> Perhaps true "in the long run". But the universe has
> not reached the point where there are resource shortages
> that would tend to promote interstellar warfare. For now
> there are lots of resources to supply the development of
> multiple advanced civilizations.
Several months ago on the Starship_Forum list [see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/] Dennis mentioned that he
thought the reason for competition would be obvious here. Any other
species would tend to spread exponentially. It might even become more
advanced more quickly. This would set up the potential for conflict in
the future. Why leave it to chance? Also, it might be unlikely any two
civilizations would understand each others' motives. I don't
necessarily buy this, but imagine the case where only n% of
civilizations are hyperaggressive. The other (100-n)% would still have
to take them into account and this might shape the whole way
civilizations deal with each other on a universal scale.
Now, this all relies on an extended analogy with human foreign
relations. I don't know how far it can be pushed, but I don't think
it's unquestionably wrong. No doubt, if humans move out into space,
some of this might play out in the solar system. However, I tend to
side more with Robert here once you have the technology to upload and
distribute. We shall, I hope, see.
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 18:38:17 MST