Re: predictions if wave passed here

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Thu Oct 19 2000 - 12:04:56 MDT

My system says this did not go through the first time. Sorry if it is a



Eugene Leitl wrote: > > Samantha Atkins writes: > > > Outcomes, especially ones that claim we wouldn't get to hatch if a more > > intelligent species had come through this sector, very much are a > > question of intelligence, foresight, morality and so on along with the > > things you name. There is no a priori reason why we should assume that > > No, not at all. I never claimed the pioneers would be intelligent. It > doesn't require to be that to be able to overrun a solar system > occupied by a pre-Singularity civilization.

Unless solid (enforceable if need be) agreements are in place not to overrun a certain volume around life-bearing but relatively primitive planets.

> > > more advanced species than ourselves are at all covered by an analogy of > > competing firms or any other analogy from current earthside economics. > > I won't go into where your analogy isn't necessarily so clear cut even > > in earthside economics. > > Who talks about economics? Not me. Just self selection of the fastest > autoreplicators. Same thing which lets a certain autocatalytic RNA > species emerge at the other end of a long capillary filled with > metabolizable substrate. >

Fastest selection of auto-replicators is not relevant in a space where selection/desirability criteria and limitations are more complex that the scenarios where efficience of replication rules all. I have no reason to assume everything is explanable and predictable according to auto-replication models or by comparing super-intelligent species and their agents to RNA. > > Assuming the policing agency, assuming one was needed, and was only > > technological equal to the sooners rather than enough superior to set up > > barriers that would stop sooners from encroaching. Suppose, for > > Huh? Policing agency? Relativistic latency prevents you from synching > action, and you need massive presence to enforce decisions, whether > global or local. >

Not so. You do not need to synch action across huge volumes to stop encroachment on protected areas. Local intelligent defenses of sufficient caliber will be adequate. The encroachment is limited by even greater constraints than speed of light communication. > > instance, that there is a sort of Vingean relative slowness bubble > > around us until we seem mature enough to venture out into the broader > > universe. The bubble would make operations unprofitable for those who > > We're talking about real physics, not science fiction physics. If > inner areas of galaxies are sterile, it is due to other mechanisms. >

What pray tell is real physics post-Singularity? It is to laugh to dismiss "science fiction physics" out of hand. What a science fiction writer can come up with today is merely a jumping off point for the best scientists today. Post-singularity with vastly increased and concentrated intelligence much that is science-fiction will be child's play. The inner areas of galaxies? If they are sterile of life it is probably due to higher radiation, asteroid bombardment and so on. At least sterile of life as we usually define it. Post-SI entities could probably exist and thrive in some remarkably "sterile" environments. > > might be tempted to not respect the local nursery space. But I would > > actually suggest that any forces that may be have a mutual agreement to > > abide by certain rules and do not let new races out and about until they > > make the same agreement and can be trusted to keep it. I would expect > > much more advanced species to have much more advanced ways of sealing > > such a mutual agreement than simple brute force and hauling one another > > before magistrates. > > You anthromorphize a lot. Lots of hidden assumptions guarantee a bogus > scenario. >

Not in the least. I simply expect intelligence, esepcially much higher intelligence to manage to make and keep agreements that increase its overall benefits and avoid too much conflict and chaos. I would rather bet on that than bet that a model based on replicating bacteria is more applicable.

> > > The key technology that would make a difference would be an ability > > > to project force out farther and faster than reproducing colonists > > > could move. But it is hard to imagine such a technology. > > > > Well, if the colonies are moving at less than c and there is a means of > > communication at c or better and policing mechanisms have been deployed > > throughout the protected spaces (at least), then it is not that terribly > > You can't protect the space other than being there with sufficient > infrastructure to intercept and outgun intruders. Assuming how much > infrastructure you need, it is hard to miss such presence, and it is > not obvious that more advanced (and nonexpansive?!) species can cast > their invisible protective veil faster than the fast dumb brutes. >

Dunno. We would miss serious nanotech level defenses in say the Oort Cloud today. Hell, we would miss significant nanotech level presence even on earth. What makes you think for a second that the more advanced and more moral species will stand for the fast dumb brutes marching roughshod over the developing races? Personally I would tend to protect developing races and make sure they don't get too far out into the rest of the galaxy while they still are "dumb brutes". > > difficult. Forget the communication. Just have local intelligence > > mechanisms on guard duty that are sufficiently powerful to deter any > > foolish enough to break the agreements. > > If you're that powerful to brush off pioneers, you don't have > to. Because you're sitting at the center of a rapidly expanding > bubble. You're then the enemy. >

Sigh. You seem unable to think beyond your own model of endless conflict to see that it is actually in the interest of intelligent species to cooperate and that it might be considered in their interest to carefully guard the development of young species. It is not that hard to set up agreements between species that have mutual interests and agreements about what is important. > If you can expand, you will. If you can't or won't, you're irrelevant, > because no one is ever going to interact with you. Hence either Rare > Earth, or the Zoo.

Expansion is not the end and be all that you attempt to make it. There are other things of massive importance that make an individual or a species worth interacting with. Expansion does not equate to mindless expansion that destroys and consumes everything else other than itself regardless. In all the vastness of space other life might be rare enough to be held quite special and worthy of respect and room to develop.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT