Re: Dennis May replies/was Re: One solution to the Fermi Paradox

From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 19:17:01 MST

  • Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Re: Giant anti-war demonstration in Melbourne"

    Ah, I've lost count, but here's another one.:)

    Dan

    From: Dennis May determinism@hotmail.com
    To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 9:01 PM

    Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:

    >If there are other civilizations in the visible universe, then they'll
    have
    >their own wave front expanding at the speed of light, and yes,
    >there will be a collision. But there will be no advance notice of the
    >meeting. Moreover, the wave front itself will be at the stage of
    >technological development that characterized the beginning stages of
    >expansion, not the stage meanwhile reached at the centers.

    >So the collision will be on approximately equal terms.

    There are several assumptions [variables] inherent
    in your model which can turn out very differently.
    Colonizing new land does not expand uniformly in
    all directions. It generally follows the path of
    least resistance to the greatest riches in the
    shortest time frame. But settlers do not always
    follow the rules. In the United States some early
    European settlers lived far from the settlement
    front a century before the later Europeans. Some
    met the natives and traded with them long before
    significant war between the groups occurred.
    Many settlers bypassed the Indians effectively
    leaving them in the middle while growth occurred
    on both sides.

    I see no good reason to assume that the most
    advanced technology will be found near the
    center of the expansion sphere. Did all
    modern technology arise out of Africa or
    did a great deal of it happen in the United
    States while it was still being settled?

    Lee Corbin wrote:

    >Given nanotech, how is stealth possible?

    Your nanotech will be fighting, evading,
    and hiding from other nanotech [both your
    own, competing groups within your own
    expansion sphere, and alien] much like
    ants battling for supremacy. Nanotech
    will have to remain stealth or be destroyed.
    Corrupted or obsolete nanotech will have to
    be hunted by other nanotech or its presence
    will betray you militarily. If you cannot
    control your nanotech it becomes a liability.
    Stealth is not about remaining invisible
    under all circumstances, it is about
    minimizing your exposure and making the
    enemy expend great resources if he wishes
    to find you. His expenditure of great
    resources exposes him.

    Lee Corbin wrote:

    >Why wouldn't my local civilization expand to use every single last
    asteroid
    >in the neighborhood? Certainly, no solar system will escape notice.
    The
    >growth of the singularity will be geometric, both locally and globally.

    Even bacteria only expand geometrically under
    ideal circumstances and only for a finite
    amount of time due to finite resources.
    Introduce a single pathogen and all bets are
    off. Introduce multiple pathogens or
    competitors and you develop an ecology.
    With an endless Cold War of WoMD in space
    you will be more concerned about avoiding
    destruction than mining every last piece
    of usable rock. There is plenty of good
    rock to graze on as you live the nomadic
    life. A missing rock here or there will
    not raise red alerts like whole asteroids
    mined and built into thousand mile long
    space stations.

    Think militarily, I'm sure others have and
    will.

    I see interlacing civilizations of nomads,
    not colliding brick walls. Sort of like
    different species of bees forming dispersed
    swarms. One swarm can pass right through
    another without conflict. When conflict
    does occur the decentralized nomadic nature
    of both keeps it from spreading far. WoMD
    ensure the wise policy is to keep right on
    moving. Any ground you might claim can
    be destroyed for much cheaper than you can
    defend it.

    Dennis May

    ~ * ~
    Starship Forum website:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Starship_Forum/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 19:40:42 MST