[extropy-chat] 10th Planet Discovered

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 06:48:28PM -0500, Brent Neal wrote:

> I agree it is useless making such predictions, which is 
> why I both strenuously object to your using self-replicating 

This assumes we have no idea how to do AI/self-replicating 
nanotechnology. While I cannot give you a roadmap yet with milestones
which won't slip, they're "just" R&D. No unobtainium, no tooth fairy
involved.

In comparison to that, we have no idea how build traversible wormholes. Not
even whether the metalaws of the multiverse allow them.

> nanotech and in this message, the link between AI and nanotech 
> as givens in the debate about colonization of the solar system.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying AI or nanotechnology are
"required". That we shouldn't e.g. start bootstrapping a lunar fabbing
facility via teleoperation. Quite the opposite: as long as it remains a
positive sum game, we should.

However, AI/nanotechnology will completely dominate posthuman future.
Suited/canned monkeys are an expiring model, though they haven't even
properly started yet.

> >I do not care much about lowest common denominator level of discussion on
> >nanotechnology. It makes my brain bleed.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how you meant that but either way, I find it 
> amusing. Are you seriously suggesting that Smalley and Drexler 
> are somehow ill-informed about the minutiae of the nanotech debate?

No. The level of the debate has been dumbed down to be understandable to the
general public so that it has become difficult to understand what they're
talking about.

Having this said, Smalley has said a few curious things which make me suspect
he's sketchy on understanding on machine-phase self-rep systems.

> Nanotech represents a locus of related, but not identical, fields.  

I've touched bio/org/phys/polymer/computational chemistry in my career, and
kept current on nanotechnology since early 1980s, so I'm more or less
familiar with the problem domain, yes. 

> The construction of molecular assemblers is but one aspect of the 
> field. However, your previous statements indicated that you believe 

I'm actually mostly a self-assembly nano person, if that's of any use. I'm
more interested in molecular circuitry, because this technology is about 15
years remote from our desktops, and it is very useful for a number of
computational problems. Nano bootstrap by means of autoassembly is a
computational problem, so is artificial cognition and automation in general.

In many aspects, this is the nexus technology.

> that molecular assemblers are necessary for the colonization of 
> the solar system in earnest. I disagree with that, for the reasons 

They're not necessary. They will just render any previous human presence in
this solar system insignicant. 

> I've stated previously.

I see we keep misunderstanding each other. The failure is largely mine, it's
difficult to write coherently while actually working. Sorry about that.
 
> >Of course. What has the current state of the art to do with anything? 
> 
> The current state of the art has everything to do with my point!  
> We have the capability to industrialize space right now.  

No, not without scaled-down teleoperators for lunar environment. They're not
that difficult to build, but it will take about a decade for a worthwhile
presence if we'd start an aggressive, seriously funded development program 
right now.

> We should invest early, instead of waiting for our "state 
> of the art" to give us some magical wonder-tech.

You misunderstood me completely. We clearly have a lot of loose cash, judging
by our frivolous activities. We could clearly fare better to have invested
the Iraq campaign funds into the lunar bootstrap (though I'd rather see that
used for polymer electronics, photovoltaics and direct alcohol/fuel reformer
fuel cells, and, yes, specific areas in nanotechnology).
 
> Yeah, well duh. But you have to start somewhere, which means shipping 
> the means to exploit the other rocks up from down here. Obviously, you 

Of course. But there are no rocks in LEO, or GEO. Hauling hardware into LEO
or Moon surface doesn't have much differing costs (machines don't mind long
transfer times, people do, people don't like high deccelerations, machines
don't mind impact shocks, if properly designed).

> only want to boost the minimum required to do so. But waving your 
> hands at that simple truth won't make it go away.

I'm pointing out that there are very large differences in bootstrap
complexity if you compare Luna and Mars (or asteroids, doesn't really
matter).
 
> Hmm. I'd read that most of the useful chemicals on the Moon were 
> bound up in the rocks, and not in a terribly useful state. The 

That's manifestly untrue. You can build a very effective solar still using
lunar shadow temperature gradients and a 100 g or so of clear and aluminizied 
mylar foil. Human understanding of ore is just an artifact of terrestrial
context. Lunar regolith contains any type of element I'd care to mine and to
process. People might lament lack of volatiles, but then, vacuum industrial
processes don't need volatiles in large quantities. And a closed-loop
ecosystem would do plenty with a ton of water/person, or less. 

> white papers published by Zubrin, among others, seem to indicate 
> that Earth->LEO/GEO->Mars is a much more cost effective path.

Then he's smoking crack. We don't have autonomous automation, and 2 sec lag
is barely sufficient for hand/eye coordination. Nevermind transfer times and
costs to Mars.
 
> Absolutely. The next logical place to put humans is Mars, to cut 
> down the communications delay  to industrialization efforts in the 
> asteroid belt. Plus, we actually have a decent chance of terraforming Mars. Added bonus.

You're describing a completely irrational programme. Why are you so bent on
pulling another Apollo with Mars? 
 
> You know, we're not doing a bad job for remote operations 
> on Mars. Especially not for our 3rd very tentative try. 

We're doing an awful job as far as industry automation on Mars is concerned.
We're doing a so-so job as far as exploration is concerned, given the lossage
rate. We're doing abysmally as compared to e.g. an insect's degree of
robustness and autonomy.

It only looks good if you compare it to other human artifacts.

> 
> The problem that I'm seeing with most of your arguments is 
> that you are looking 20-50 years out, and assuming the next 
> 20 years goes your way. I've had too many encounters with the 

I'm making no specific predictions. I'm just saying that people as we know
them won't conquer space, on the long run. How long it takes depends on a
number of factors which are not predictable.

> mad prophet Murphy to expect that. Talk to me about what we 
> can do -now-. Don't hand-wave, and don't bullshit. One of 

My degree of involvement in this debate is low. For once, it's completely
futile. It has no impact on policy. It takes away focus and precious minutes
of my life. If I was rational I would have gone offline for good many years
ago.

So, no, I will not spend significant resources even on superficial analysis
rehash. Sorry if this appears impolite, but I'm not owing this to anybody.

> my fondest wishes is for us to start looking at space as 
> more than just a convenient setting for novels and as a 
> money-sink for politicians. We've invested a fsckload of 
> money and we should be considering a return on that investment.  

Space has a very high ROI threshold, though that threshold depends very much
on which bootstrap trajectory we're choosing. So far, our space activities
have not been ROI-oriented.

> Undoubtedly we've seen some of that - read Heinlein's testimony 
> to Congress in the 80's for examples. But what have we gotten 
> since then? We should expect more.

I'm certainly not expecting a ROI-oriented space exploration strategy from a
national space program. It doesn't matter, as long as access to LEO for small
payloads can be purchased by sufficiently equipped private groups.

The threshold is sinking as we speak, as long as our automation research
advances. We should start worrying when our capabilities start degrading,
globally. 

-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040316/d4a76269/attachment.bin>