From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 01:22:32 MDT
On Sunday 03 August 2003 19:00, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> And just why aren't they using the energy available in our solar system?
>
Because we are here and they are more ethical than we seem to be.
> > Even the idea of boundless physical expansion, while possessing
> > a certain mathematical symmetry, I think is based on our evolved
> > drive for procreation and won't match posthuman values.
>
> Yes, perhaps there is some sort of instinct to "breed abundantly
> in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth" that
> evolved. But why should that be inimical to our posthuman values?
>
Because it is a silly program to extend indefinitely.
> For one thing, is not appealing to bring life to the outer reaches
> of the universe? Why should matter not be rescued from its currently
> dead state almost everywhere?
>
Do you honestly believe that we are the only life, on this one itty-bitty
planet, in all the universe?
> But an even stronger argument is this: it takes only *one* posthuman
> civilization---or perhaps only one sufficiently advanced posthuman---
> to colonize the rest of the universe. Why is it so alluring to so
> many people to imagine that somehow all posthuman value systems will
> universally turn up their noses at this? Especially when the ends
> are so noble?
I don't agree the ends are so noble. They may well be a simplistic extension
of our current drives and understanding. Since it is nearly inconceivable
that we are the *only* planet with intelligent life in the entire universe,
and since there are no apparent colonization efforts here, we are left with
the less impossible thing being that some/all existing posthuman
civilizations do not have this goal and that either we are uninteresting,
espensive to consume or protected from any posthuman civs that are that
exansionistic.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 01:29:47 MDT