Great idea, but uhmm...
Problem #1: We take out technologies and our problems with us
wherever we go.
Problem #2: The technology most likely to make this Martian backup
copy feasible (cheap) is also the one most likely to annihilate us
all--nanotechnology. Ergo, backup copy is unlikely before point of
On 29 Jan 2001, at 23:22, denis bider wrote:
> Barbara Lamar writes:
> > "Overcoming problems by brute force, rather than by using
> > imagination and knowledge, will not be acceptable in the future."
> > In evaluating the various technologies that are currently following
> > exponential development paths, it seems a good idea to sort
> > out the brute force ones from the elegant ones.
> I liked reading your post - it was full of ideas, most of which I do not yet
> entirely comprehend.
> However, one small thought that occured to me while reading the last quoted
> paragraph above:
> There is one thing that I think we need to accomplish as soon as possible -
> possibly before we start sorting out brute force methods from elegant ones.
> That thing is... a backup copy of our civilization. On something like Mars.
> The more our technology progresses, the more we risk self-destruction that
> no living thing on this planet will be able to escape. I think the only way
> we can truly avoid a scenario of total destruction is to populate other
> parts of the solar system as soon as possible - and to make them
> I think this should be *the* top priority of world's major governments; the
> danger of inadvertent self-destruction looms more and more each day. It
> seems to me that programs like NASA are vastly under-financed - people seem
> to think that "we've been there, done that". But I think we haven't even
> scratched the surface; we really need to invest to establish a backup
> civilization. If I were Mr Bush, I would invest those USD 1.3 trillion
> directly into space, not into tax cuts.
> Again, just my 2.35 Yen.
> - denis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:26 MDT