From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 09:39:36 MDT
On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 02:43 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Their story is old hat. Why does anything need to be
>> sacrificed: what stays here stays here, and I transmit
>> as much as possible (copying, *not* moving) of myself
>> to the least amount of matter than we have to send to
>> constitute a receiver.
>
> But *why* would you create Lee II when Lee II cannot significantly
> benefit Lee I and Lee II (and Lee II's offspring) could potentially
> be competing against you for resources when they start getting scarce
> in the universe?
You're forgetting that Lee doesn't care about benefit to Lee I
in particular, but about benefit to all the instances of Lee
collectively. That is, creating Lee II is a way to get more
run time for Lee I.
I don't happen to agree with that, but losing track of what's
been said before is exceptionally unproductive in these threads.
> You have to create an "enslaved" Lee II that is permanently
> loyal to Lee I which means that its usefullness is limited
> because you have to limit its freedom to evolve.
>
> Would Great Britian or Spain have allowed the colonization of
> the U.S. if they could have anticipated the creation of a nation
> that would defeat them in various wars?
If they had started with the assumption that GB or Spain would
eventually be defeated by *someone*, they might very well have
chosen to deliberately create the next set of winners. You can't
prevent North America (or the intergalactic space) from being
colonized, but you can try to choose what sort do the colonization.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "Not only can money buy happiness, it isn't even particularly expensive any more." -- Spike Jones
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 09:49:08 MDT