<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">This said, we are not currently in a Malthusian regime, so bringing in additional participants (whether through copying or old-fashioned baby-making) is not necessarily a reason for conflict, yet.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rafał </div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">There’s no rational reason for Muslims to behead Christians, yet we see it still happening…. So, if groups choose to act as if we are in a Malthusian state, their own hostility creates a situation where other groups feel they have to act belligerently in self-defence. But I don’t believe this HAS to happen. How the issues are framed makes a huge difference.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also realized after I wrote that I was only thinking of copy-clans in terms of genetically created physical/biological clones; but in the context of the discussion, I should have included copies in virtual space. The question I have is whether copy-clans in virtual space would be different than biological cloned-clans. It seems to me they might. Humans have less evolved reactions to virtual space, since it is so new. It might evoke some of the same archaic instincts as physical space, or it might not, or it might not to the same degree.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For instance, it seems that it would be very expensive to create biological clones, such that it would only be a technology available to a select few… leaving large masses of suspicious non-clones to re-act from fear and bigotry and even jealousy against the few clone-clans.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But virtual copies should be cheap enough to be prosaic. At least, I am thinking of avatars in video games. In video games, every player is immortal. When I watch my boys play games, I am struck by how bizarre it is to hear them say, “Ha, you died again. I killed you!” “I don’t care. I’m respawning here…” Occasionally, they still get so furious over game-kills that they start hitting one another in real life, which is why I think that to some extent biological instincts of loss and danger must spill over into “Real Life” even when they know it’s “just a game.” Ego issues of who is “better” still matter a great deal. But over time, the game teaches them that immortality is real and deaths are all part of the game, so they are less likely to fight physically. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If everyone could exist in a virtual space with easy access to multiple copies and immortal virtuality, this might draw the sting from wars and disputes in physical space. I do not think it would stop jockeying for power, or eliminate the problem of trying to prove oneself is “better” than others through competition, but maybe that competition would be seen by more and more people as a non-zero sum game ...</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<div class="">Tara Maya</div><div class=""><a href="http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" class="">Blog</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/taramayastales" target="_blank" class="">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl" target="_blank" class="">Facebook</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent" target="_blank" class="">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya" target="_blank" class="">Goodreads</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>