[extropy-chat] Space: The Final Constraint
phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Tue Jun 13 17:47:59 UTC 2006
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:16:59AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Damien Sullivan <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
> 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
More information about the extropy-chat