Re: A vision

From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:23:18 MDT

  • Next message: Dan Fabulich: "Re: Why Does Self-Discovery Require a Journey?"

    Anders' vision has much that is appealing and beautiful. A living cosmos,
    full of variation and evolution, is far more worthwhile than the mostly
    dead one we apparently have today.

    However, I don't think it is the best we can do. Life by itself is
    not enough. Without intelligence and consciousness, life is just a
    set of complex chemical reactions. This is particulary clear in the
    vision of Europa being colonized by algae living off the (hypothetical)
    deep-sea ocean vents. If it is like Earth, these environments are not
    well suited for evolution. They are too small, the energy fluxes are
    limited, the organisms can't move from vent to vent.

    How valuable is it, really, to add an eternally unchanging colony of
    microorganisms to Europa? How much have we improved the situation?
    Cells are tremendously complex sacks of macromolecules and chemical
    reactions. But why fill the universe with mindless cells, running their
    chemical reactions?

    If we substituted nanotech "gray goo" engines for the cells, similar
    mindless replicators specialized to some environment, how many people
    would support spreading these mindless engines throughout the universe?
    This transformation eliminates the sentimentality and leaves exposed
    the bare question of the value of replicators without sense or awareness.

    We might suggest that the value of life is in evolution, in creating
    new kinds of life forms and new adaptations. But even that, frankly,
    can be done better by people than by natural processes. A large computer
    can create and try out enormously more variety of physical or software
    structures than natural biological processes. If we want to fill the
    universe with an enormous variety of life forms, the best way to do that
    would be to create them artificially.

    Another problem with evolution, once you get to the point where
    consciousness arises, is its terrible immorality. Dan Simmons describes
    this eloquently in his book Endymion; the narrator has fallen into the
    sea, separated from his companions, thousands of miles from shore and
    seemingly with no chance of rescue, and is now bleeding and being attacked
    by sharks:

    "Part of my tired mind had been pondering theology during all this - not
    praying, but wondering about a Cosmic God who allowed Its creatures to
    torture each other like this. How many hominids, mammals and trillions
    of other creatures had spent their last minutes in mortal fear such as
    this, their hearts pounding, their adrenaline coursing through them and
    exhausting them more quickly, their small minds racing in the hopeless
    quest of escape?"

    The process of natural biological evolution is an eternal, ongoing,
    heartless war of predator against prey, with no quarter given or expected.
    Every step forward on the evolutionary ladder is accomplished through
    millions of deaths like the one Endymion faces, filled with terror
    and despair.

    That's evolution. That's the process which has given us the marvelous
    variety of life, including the greatest gift of all, our own minds.
    We owe our lives, the existence of our species, to the bloodthirsty
    violence which drives evolution. In a sense, this blood is on our hands,
    in that we are its beneficiaries. Do we really want to extend and expand
    this process throughout the universe? To me, that would only compound
    the crime.

    I'd suggest that Anders' vision of life spreading through the universe
    is incomplete. What is important is not just life, but intelligent
    life, conscious life, life that can enjoy the possibility of growth and
    expansion and improvement. It almost seemed to me that Anders was taking
    an apologetic perspective with regard to the necessity of intelligence
    in providing the tools for life to spread. I would instead emphasize
    intelligence as the entire justification for the process.

    Filling the universe with mindless plants and micro-organisms, or with
    animals whose lives are as full of suffering and difficulty as in our
    world, is not a goal that I could endorse. I am certain that we can do
    better than this, if we have the technology to achieve this goal at all.
    We should do more than attempt to replicate the same basic circumstances
    that have held on Earth for billions of years.

    Our minds are the crowning achievement of natural biological evolution.
    Our goals should ultimately be to fill the universe not with Life,
    but with Mind. We should transform the entire universe into a cosmos
    full of consciousness. The universe can be just as alive as in Anders'
    vision, but it will appreciate this precious gift of life and mind,
    rather than simply playing its part mindlessly, as a complex automaton.

    Hal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 15:34:35 MDT