[ExI] Meat v. Machine

Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com
Fri Dec 31 07:20:22 UTC 2010

On Dec 30, 2010, at 10:36 AM, BillK wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> <snip>
>> Not that we're representative, or anything, but most people don't
>> deliberately destroy stuff, even though they do wind up with it.
>> I chalk it up to our immaturity, since we definitely can't continue
>> that way, even if we would and could do it.
> *most* people doesn't cut it. It's all or nothing.
> Once very powerful tech becomes readily available, then the few (?)
> bad guys want and use it as well. It's a poor gamble that prophylactic
> measures get sufficiently powerful quickly enough.
> (Especially as so many humans are stupid enough to click on 'anything').

Do you want to live in a universal police state?  Only such could guarantee absolutely no danger from random crazies.  But the price is very high.  You would need to add perfect enlightened watchers or believe in perfected FAI running it all.  

> This is similar to your galaxy sweep argument. That is also all or nothing.
> We see nothing out there. Therefore all stay home. If there was
> anything out there, then it would be all over the galaxy by now. We're
> young in galaxy terms.

This is still a huge assumption.  It may well be that most of what is valued is more abundant closer to other beings in the advanced society rather than blasting out to the boonies.  Since the argument has been made that the von Nuemann probes would diverge quickly from the parent civ then the parent civ may see no point in populating in all directions and thus creating possibly dangerously divergent civs that make sent probes back in their direction.   But this is another of those distant questions that likely don't have much to do with whether we have a viable future or not.

- samantha

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list