From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 14:40:32 MDT
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki commenting on Hal's & Harvey's
comments wrote:
> > What are some of the assumptions the DA makes to prove its point, for
> > which there is no evidence?
>
> ### Assumption: at this time in the evolution of the universe the measure of
> civs which die early (before diaspora) is not significantly lower than the
> measure of civs which live to diaspora and beyond. If the above were not
> true, our early birth rank would not be worrisome at all.
Here, in a rare case where I have to call Rafal's perspective
into question, I have to ask "Why should there have to be
a diaspora?". Should not an advanced civilization with the
technological capabilities seek to extend current knowledge
bases rather than produce new untrained knowledge bases?
For advanced civilizations the questions would appear to be:
1) Can you beat the hazard function once one has solved "aging"?
(So longevity is from 2000-7000 years).
2) Can you beat the lifetime of your star?
(So longevity is pushed from a few billion to a few trillion years).
3) Can you beat the intents of people/civilizations who want to
consume your resources?
(Perhaps not so important now but it *will* be in the future
unless there is a way out of this singular-verse into other
instantiations of the multiverse.)
I'm open to other suggestions as to what we focus attention on
(from a long term perspective).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 14:53:52 MDT