RE: Why Not Expand?

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 19:14:35 MDT

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: Genocide sucks"

    Samantha writes

    > > And just why aren't they using the energy available in our solar system?
    >
    > Because we are here and they are more ethical than we seem to be.

    All of them. Throughout our infinite universe. How convenient
    that they are so unworldly ethical.

    > > Yes, perhaps there is some sort of instinct to "breed abundantly
    > > in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth" that
    > > evolved. But why should that be inimical to our posthuman values?
    >
    > Because it is a silly program to extend indefinitely.

    And why?

    > > For one thing, is not appealing to bring life to the outer reaches
    > > of the universe? Why should matter not be rescued from its currently
    > > dead state almost everywhere?
    >
    > Do you honestly believe that we are the only life, on this one itty-bitty
    > planet, in all the universe?

    Of course not! Remember that the universe is infinite. There are
    even infinitely many worlds with me writing this to you. (As Randall
    has just pointed out, why do we need to repeat so much on this list?
    Didn't you read the Tegmark threads at all?)

    The question is, what is the chance that there is any life within
    a billion lightyears of here, given that we have seen no sign?
    I say---exactly because we have seen no sign---that it is very
    high (like .999). What do you think the chance is---within 10^9
    lightyears?

    > > But an even stronger argument is this: it takes only *one* posthuman
    > > civilization---or perhaps only one sufficiently advanced posthuman---
    > > to colonize the rest of the universe. Why is it so alluring to so
    > > many people to imagine that somehow all posthuman value systems will
    > > universally turn up their noses at this? Especially when the ends
    > > are so noble?
    >
    > I don't agree the ends are so noble.

    Yes, so you've said. Just why you prefer Jupiter in its present
    state to it being an abode for trillions of happy people/entities
    you have *not* explained.

    But you have also not explained why since it would take only one
    person/entity/civilization to bring life to the cosmos, NOT ONE
    of them within a billion lightyears has done so (since the last
    1/14 of the age of the universe).

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 19:23:17 MDT