From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 08:06:55 MDT
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Michael Wiik wrote:
> Sometime in the past two weeks, I briefly saw a posting on (maybe)
> slashdot, re some article discussing mankind deliberately devolving into
> a nonsentient species as an end result of adapting to the environment
> (this considered being cheaper than the reverse).
I'm skeptical. Humanity has too much potential to modify the
environment given its current biotechnological or future
nanotechnological skills. Evolving to a phase state where
there are fewer humans? Perhaps. Evolving to a phase state
where most humans are uploaded? Sure. Devolving rather than
manipulating the environment? I don't think so. The survival
instinct is too strong.
Does raise an interesting perspective with regard to the Fermi
Paradox though. If you *know*, and I mean *really* know, that the
universe is doomed to collapse or expand/decay into nothingness --
does that eventually (on relatively short time scales relative
to the age of the universe) sap the will of a species to survive?
I've argued in the past that there is no interstellar "colonization"
drive because it is pointless. It can be pointless because there is
no benefit to oneself (and in fact involves a significant sacrifice --
leaving behind the knowledge/culture of an advanced civilization).
It can be pointless because one potentially creates future competitors
for what remains of the resources in the universe. Or finally it
can be pointless because one concludes there really is no way out.
On the anniversary of 911, I watched a program on the PBS program
"American Experience", which contained a minute or two of video
footage of people hurling themselves out of the burning towers
because there was no other "way out". How would a species react
if it ultimately concluded there was no "way out"?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 08:16:04 MDT