Re: The Future of Human Evolution

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 17:18:45 MDT

At 08:33 AM 30/09/04 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sep 30, 2004, at 12:17 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
>>At 06:45 PM 29/09/04 -0700, you wrote:
>>>The feasibility is not the issue here- I was asking why he would prefer
>>>to run away from a UFAI at relativistic speeds rather than supraluminal
>>>ones. I could not see any inherent disadvantage is higher speeds, that's all.
>>I don't really care how I get to less populated zones as long as it is so
>>far away that governments or UFAI decided I am not worth chasing.
>>But if we are limited to STL speeds I can live with it.
>>Distance is time with SLT and few governments are going to go after
>>people when it will take decades to centuries just to catch up to
>>them. I don't know if an UFAI would be more or less patient.
>>On the other hand, if you had a transport that let you step into any part
>>of the universe and leave no tracks, you could get lost in a billion
>>galaxies (at least).
>That's not enough, unfortunately. Even if there are 10^30 solar systems
>to run to (probably high), spreading out would be maximally effective
>for a papercliper, and assuming a replication time of a week and instant
>anywhere FTL, two years suffices to put a starter seed in every system.
>Every system. Anywhere. We should hope no FTL of this kind is possible.

Very good point. Sheesh. A whole fricking universe of paper clippers in
nothing flat.

Keith Henson

>FTL limited to some small multiple of light speed is more like STL for
>the purposes of this argument, of course.
>Randall Randall <>
>"And no practical definition of freedom would be complete
> without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it
> is the freedom upon which all the others are based."
> - Terry Pratchett, _Going Postal_

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT