[extropy-chat] Darwin Award

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 19, 2006, at 1:32 PM, jeffrey davis wrote:

> Your response is rude, but more important you seem to ignore what  
> I've written.  Check out below.


I did read what you wrote.  It specifically mentions replication on  
the moon.  Did you read what I wrote earlier about the context?   I  
don't see where what you have written really makes a case for  
satisfying the context.  Did I miss it or was it not provided?


>
> On 5/19/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available  
>> determines the costs of such a project and its  feasibility.    
>> Sufficiently advanced automation to accomplish this task as well  
>> as sufficient resources and sustaining technology may require  
>> nanotechnology and AI.  I think that it will.  If you think  
>> otherwise then please make your case.
>>
>> - samantha
>>
>> You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space  
>> missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et  
>> al. sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study.  A  
>> quarter century ago Freitas declared self-replication doable, and  
>> on the moon no less, with the attendant severe restrictions on  
>> human on-site assistance.  So it's not really my case but Freitas's.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that  
> can't be locally replicated without something like MNT, yes?
>
> No.  Who says they can't be "locally replicated" -- your use of  
> "replication" here is totally bogus.  Your use of "locally" means  
> you didn't read -- or understand -- what I wrote.  I'm talking  
> about a self-replicating machine system HERE ON EARTH with humans  
> at beck and call, as contrasted with the MORE DIFFICULT moon-based  
> operation of AASM.
>

The context is "out there" and the moon was specifically mentioned so  
I don't see what you are shouting about.

>
> What are you talking about here?  Have you read AASM?  There's no  
> indication here that you have, or that if you have you understand  
> what you read.  Talk about hand-waving.  It makes me think it's not  
> even worth respondoing to someone so dishonest in discussion.
>

No, I haven't and your brief description does not make it seem  
worthwhile to dig it up and do so at this time as what you speak of  
about AASM does not address the question at hand.


> That said.... Any project that is to be completed must have  
> sufficient resources,...well duh.  And the resources required are  
> easily with human reach.  For example a very small fraction of  
> what's been spent on the Iraq war.  Do you know what that cost was  
> estimated to be by Freitas in AASM?  If you did you would not  
> question the sufficiency of resources.
>

When you get around to speaking relevant to the context perhaps we  
can continue this.


> Current industrial infrastructure has sufficient everything to do  
> what it does, else it wouldn't successfully complete anything.
>
>
>
>>
>> Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current  
>> industrial system with humans in the loop has 100 percent  
>> closure.  Replacing the humans requires control systems.
>
>
> How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build  
> infrastructure capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a  
> hostile environment.  Where is the case that we have that  
> sophistication remotely in hand or will have with less than major  
> AI advancements?
>
> What large numbers of humans in what hostile environment?  What in  
> the world are you talking about.  You're certainly not talking  
> about what I'm talking about.  Reducing the human factor in a Self- 
> replicating Machine System (SRMS) means NOT having large numbers of  
> humans participating anywhere.  Small numbers, yes, for maintenance  
> and troubleshooting in the early prototyping and shakedown stages.   
> But
>
>

Again, context is large scale off-world self-sustaining human  
habitat.  It appears we are talking at cross purposes  despite my  
continuing efforts to reference the context.

- samantha




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060519/6be85464/attachment.html>