Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes:
> absolute safety for we citizens is as simple as a protected memory partition.
Not only logically (memory doesn't have to be globally addressable,
nor is it strictly memory), physically, too. The habitat hardware
occupies physical space, it can be attacked, and taken out. Virtual
navel gazing is not sustainable.
> And - this is the controversial part - we're far too smart to spend our days
> trying to embarass each other socially and we have nothing to lose; we could
Assuming there are others, you have to interact with them in a mature
society, hence requiring extensive representation machinery. I don't
see the little intrigues vanish, quite the opposite. What do you do,
if there's nothing more to build (you've used up all the atoms),
nowhere to go (we've colonized everything's there to colonize) and
nothing more to discover (physics has ended)? Why, you socialize. Deal
in scarce things. Bits are cheap, unless specifically structured.
> see any attack coming a mile away if we did; we don't have the brainware to
If there's a relativistic chunk of matter coming at you, or even a
measly 50 MT warhead at Mach 12, you have to look ahead, and intercept
the stuff way before. You still have to track the world.
> *get* embarassed if we did lose face; and we've got better things to do with
People with brain lesions are commonly considered defective, and
rarely do well in society.
> our time.
A culture of interactionless individuals? That I'd like to see.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT