From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 16:48:18 MDT
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Mark Walker (responding to my comments)
wrote:
[Mark, please read all the way to the end of this -- you offer
an observation there that I did not have the perspective of
in responding to the general discussion through much of the text.]
> Robert, I don't get the feeling you take serious the "just one problem" or
> what we might think of as "the iron laws of galactic history" problem.
I understand your point. I'll try to provide some justification.
> It looks like we will soon have the technology to send out a genesis probe (the
> von Neumann machine on the end of a rocket).
Yep. But it raises the question:
(a) Why in the blazes would one do that? Given that it may be sowing
the seeds for the destruction of oneself or ones civilization).
[For the sowing of a genesis probe to make sense you also have
to argue that the civilization is monumentally stupid or
self-destructive (in the long run)].
(b) One has to argue that SR probes will not have been eliminated by
more advanced civilizations (as a really bad idea).
So one is only left with the possibility that a very "early" advanced
technological civilization sent out SR-probes (which will ultimately
come back to haunt it) and they managed to get a sufficient foothold
to allow their survival before more sensible minds came to dominate
the environment.
This scenario *may* have happened in some galaxies -- which is why
I view the exploration of what is "out there" with some interest.
(I'll note this week we seem to have both observations that stars
with higher metal content are more likely to have jupiter class planets
as well as the fact that there seem to be galaxies that only consist
of hydrogen gas (given our limited observational capabilities)...
There are a *lot* of possibilities that we have not considered.
> If we don't send out such a
> probe it looks for all the world that this must be a political decision.
No -- absolutely not. Not sending out a SR probe is ultimately
a "survival decision". One does *not* want ones foolish youthful
decisions ("oh -- lets just see what is out there") to come back
to haunt you in old age as in ("oh dad, I notice that my sun is running
out of hydrogen so why don't I simply 'borrow' some from your sun").
Duh... I think even spike would be willing to agree that this
isn't "rocket science".
Doesn't mean that a few civilizations might not get it wrong from
time to time -- but if there is a "Galactic Club" established it
seems likely that it will quickly crack down hard on such foolish
civiliztions.
Here is an interesting question (for an advanced civilization) --
If there *were* a "Galactic Club" (something that you cannot in
any way be certain of due to speed-of-light delays in ones
knowledge of the state of the galaxy) -- how would one view
a civilization that would behave so stupidly as to send out
SR probes in a Universe that one suspects (given current
observations) has finite resources? (So one is going to have
to eliminate the self-replicators *sooner or later*.)
> Are there galactic iron laws that prohibit us from doing this?
No -- but I think there may be logical conclusions that any
rational species may reach and therefore they end up becoming
the "law of the land".
So you have to argue that there are "advanced technological
civilizations" that are quite misinformed (i.e. they have
not bothered to scan the galaxy for signs of intelligent
activity -- [note I said "signs" and not "communication"])
or else they are not rational.
It might be an interesting discussion -- "what would be the
longevity of a non-rational civilization?" (We can use humanity
as a marker perhaps -- we may be pushing towards 10,000 years with
semi-rationality.)
> [snip] then one of them would have done
> the imprudent thing long ago and there should be genesis probes here right
> now.
Yep, one can be "imprudent". Going in that direction raises any
number of questions. I'll point out only two:
(a) how can one guarantee there is not an alien presence within this
solar system specifically tasked with keeping us from behaving
imprudently? It doesn't even have to be particularly intelligent
(how intelligent does it have to be to prevent SR probes from
leaving the solar system...);
(b) Have you seriously considered the intelligence scales? An
MBrain has around 10^42 OPS. A probe has what 10^13? (Somewhat
less than a human even if you are using moderately advanced tech).
Can you seriously propose that the "imprudent" behavior is going
to survive in galaxy where "prudent" behavior has a selective
advantage?
> I can
> easily imagine a group of Nietzscheans saying that they think launching a
> genesis probe is the highest manifestation of their will to power,
Good example *but* I think you need to qualify it as being a bunch
of extremely unintelligent Nietzscheans who really do not care about
their own survival. And they only get lucky if they "happen" to
exert their "power" at the precise point in galactic evolution when
it might be successful. And given the speed of light delays there
is probably no way of knowing that. So they are playing a very high
stakes game. And in most high stakes games one loses.
> It seems to me that if
> there are a reasonable number of advanced civilizations then there must be
> iron laws: political laws stopping genesis probes--a galactic UN of
> sorts--or some as yet unknown laws of the universe that prevent the
> launching of a genesis probe.
Ah-ha -- so we come to some meeting of the minds -- perhaps. There
may not be "political" rules preventing probes but there may be both
some logical rules (that civilizations impose upon themselves) as
well as interdiction efforts (imposed by any galactic clubs). Where
*we* (humanity) reside in this development process needs quite a bit
more information before we can make any well qualified judgements
I would feel.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 16:57:01 MDT