[ExI] No Moon Bases Needed (Eugen Leitl)
Kevin G Haskell
kgh1kgh2 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 1 06:32:19 UTC 2011
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:56:41 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:24:08PM -0400, Kevin G Haskell wrote:
> (Why would we need moon bases if we hope to evolve, soon? Who >would pay
> >Evolving is hard work, and takes a lot of resources. Might be not
> >so soon as many think.
> (Evolving is hard work, but it is happening faster and faster already,
>People are exactly the same as 50 kiloyears ago.
It is hard to see where one is in terms of evolution when one is inside
their particular time-frame, nor is it easy to see when they are located in
a local that was further advanced a certain amount of years ago, for
instance, the US, than other places on the planet, say, Africa, for
instance. But while comparatively to the past and to the location, not only
only have far less advanced people on earth been able to 'evolve' through
unimaginable forms of communication that was imperceptible 50 years ago, but
to a slightly lesser extent, so have the previously developed nations.
The way our brains are wired are altering, but will alter even faster as we
begin to more closely interact with computers, and to literally be able to
download information directly into our brains.
> (the heavy resources should be invested in something that is realistic at)
>>The US troop tent air conditioning budget is bigger than NASA.
>>The wars are at 4 terabucks already and counting.
>There is heavy resource spending allright, and it's all poppycock.
I am in total agreement that less should be spend on US overseas troop
deployment, and more on NASA (which is another way the US military can
benefit, anyway.) But this in no way means that money should be spent on
putting bases on the moon. Investments can be directed into various
agencies from the military that can both assist those agencies, and the
military, such as into speeding up robotics research and computer research
and development, both of with will be greatly contributing to H+
development, and moves toward the Singularity.
> (this point. The greatest resource is the human mind, soon to be the
> Transhuman mind, and if the Transhumans find a need to go the moon, >then
> they will do so much more quickly and efficiently.)
>You've fallen prey to the Singularity cult. Our 'friends from the future'
>are out worst enemies, because the make us sit there in langurous >apathy.
>Don't ask what the future can do for you, ask what you can do for the
>future. Orelse there won't be any future for you.
In this instance that you quoted, I wasn't even talking about the
Singularity (although I do believe continued development 'will' lead to it,)
but to Transhumanism. That is not something that is leading to apathy, but
to quite a bit of excitement and resources being invested into more H+
tech. If we can continue along this path, like it or not, our "friends from
the future" will arrive, and hopefully, they will actually be friends, and
not of any other sort.
> (There are so many things with the article in this link that I can't even
> begin dissecting it. While not just extrapolate the numbers that humans)
>You're not supposed to dissect it but to look at the numbers and realize
>we're running out of time.
If I didn't dissect 'any' of it, I wouldn't have realized that the article
was making egregious assumptions. I looked at the numbers, and came to no
> (will use in the next million years? How about throwing out any
>Don't worry your pretty little head about the next megayear, rather think
>about the next century.
The point I was making, beautiful, was that if the article was going to be
absurd, why not just absurdity to the next level?
> (of technological advances, or that population is expected to become
>You haven't read the article. Technology can't create something from
What you just wrote does not address the sentence you quoted, but regarding
the article, I never said that technology comes from nothing. It comes from
the resource of the human mind using resources from the rest of the earth.
That's why we have what we have today.
> (in less then 50 years to between 9 and 10 billion people? These >
> provided in the article are absurd.)
>The numbers aren't absurd (up to where they start exceeding the speed >of
>It's just a Kardashev roadmap.
Yes they are. One can take any map (or any computer program, for that
matter) and throw whatever inaccuracies one wants in at any point,
especially the beginning, and get whatever results are desired. If the
information isn't accurate when it is put into the map or program, one will
get completely inaccurate feedback and data.
> > (resources on bettering humanity through Transhumanism and working
> >You see many resources spent on transhumanism?
>>(Increasingly, yes, and I wish to see that trend continue at an every)
Garcon, I'd like to have whatever he's having. It's heady stuff.
Escargot with garlic butter, and observation of the amazing technologies
that are being developed.
> (quickening pace. I more Capitalistic system would do wonders.)
>Capitalistic system. Yes, I'm sure it's all what it takes.
A Capitalistic System that will managed globally by an elite technocratic
class I call "The Philosopher-Technocrats," which would not necessarily be a
monolithic group, but would work together to ensure that high-tech systems
work as smoothly throughout the world so all kinds of progress is made, and
to ensure laws keep up with the developments. In a sense, I wish to see
this class of people replace the present slow-motion elite, reduce the size
of global government, a make it much freer for people to produce at a higher
rate with superior quality.
> > (Singularity. Wasting money on moon bases would only divert trillions
> > dollars from money that should be otherwise be directed at something
> > productive for the human race.)
> >MWh feed, clothe and house people. With real information ecology,
> >MHw will directly power people.
> MWh is? I think I get the gist, and have to say, the only way we hope to
> feed, clothe, and house people, is through continued freeing of state-run
> nations to market-based ones, as we have been seeing happen world-wide.
> intentions aren't enough, nor realistic. Well-reasoned self-interested is
> the most empathetic people can be by providing the wealth needed to
> the goods and services need for all people.)
>Less dogma, more traction.
What dogma? I am seeing progress on a daily basis that shocks me out of the
water. You aren't?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat