[extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint

[Damien Sullivan]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:16:59AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>    On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan <[1]phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>      Then you shouldn't begrudge this speck of a planet for the life
>      already on it, should you?
> 
>    Are you proposing the indefinite pursuit of the goals of surviving and
>    producing copies with minor modifications?  

The proposed use of computronium is not much different.  Goal of
surviving and producing instances with minor modifications per unit
time.

> That that is the *best* use for the matter and energy at our disposal?

I don't know *best*.  I know caution, not certainty.  I like backups.
Why turn Earth into computronium while Venus is available?

> Extending this thought would suggest that we should run around the
> galaxy hauling back hydrogen to keep this little game running
> relatively indefinitely.  We

Probably not cost-effective, but otherwise not obviously ridiculous.
The extreme alternative to having a galaxy full of life is to turn off
the stars and keep one planet going a really long time.  What's more
valuable, a galaxy for 10 billion years or a solar system for 1e20 years
or a planet for 1e30 years?  Is it worthwhile to make more people if
they all have to face death sooner?  I'm accused of denying existence to
1e33 people; I could accuse others of denying existence to someone who
is 1e30 years old.

I liked Jef's general answer.

-xx- Damien X-) 

"If nothing we do means anything, the only thing that means anything is
what we do." -- Joss Whedon (Angel)

"I beseech you, Sirs, in the bowels of Christ to consider that you may
be wrong!" -- Oliver Cromwell, to Parliament