From: Jacques Du Pasquier (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 04:24:48 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote (18.2.2002/23:08) :
> Your proposal is not a "solution" as all the possibilities of
> disaster go with you.
You got used to think that there is a God-like Total Solution in a few
decades. Not everyone is thus convinced. Just preserving human life
beyond a terrestrial catastrophe does look like something important to
If you think of it, it's pretty obvious: it would be incredibly
mindless, while there is some risk of terrestrial human life
extinction, not to try something like that.
> Solve the problem here or elsewhere, it
> is still the same problem. Running off to build space colonies
> will simply distract from actually facing the problem.
First, it is not a choice between this and other initiatives. Second,
the very initiative can only raise consciousness to the existing
perils, which seems good to me.
For Eliezer, the urgency of SI is, if I recall well, linked to
nanotech arrival. So if people, reflecting on the lifeboat initiative,
get to understand the perils of nanotech, they might even donate to
Sing. Institue. Think how many people don't have any clue about any of
No-one knows what will happen. I think it's fine that this should be
tried among other things.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST