Re: Supernovas less risky

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 20:10:43 MST


I'll snip the posts from both Anders and Eliezer and simply
add the comment that it seems likely that if these two individuals are
debating the topic it goes to the core of an extropian perpsective.

>From where I sit, it is fundamental. We may exist in an unlimited
universe (a Dysonian perspective) in which case we should understand
how to make the best use of that (i.e. how does one best prepare for
the "slowdown"). *Or* we may exist in a "limited" universe in which
case we should understand how to best prepare for the inevitable
"crunch".

To prevent us from re-inventing this topic, I have started a web page:
http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/References/Universe.html

I will be happy to add references to this we page if people forward
them to me. Let us not keep reinventing the wheel.

It is worth noting that given my calculations based on current hazard
rates predicting an average longevity of several thousand years, or the
calculations of Robert Freitas from the recent Alcor conference
of a average longevity that might approach ten thousand years
(my sources suggest he may have said ~8,000 years but this was
based on some improvments in the current accident rate) -- that is
*still* a very very long way from the trillion or so years we can
expect to extract from any decent star with star-lifting.

Bottom line: unless we come up with a very radical new paradigm for
how to evolve "personally" the "extropic" vision of self-preservation
of ones body is "dead on arrival". [Not that that is a "bad" thing
but I think it is something that should be discussed in greater detail
on the list.] It seems to place an emphasis on the concept that
one must choose to either evolve or perish. One can't (generally)
escape the laws of statistics.

R.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST