Re: Human extinction

From: Russell Wallace (
Date: Mon Jan 16 2006 - 17:19:32 MST

On 1/16/06, Keith Henson <> wrote:
> Any number of things dependent on advanced technology. Rapture or
> simulations with 72 virgins for example. Or something as benign as a
> product of Chinese nanotech, a bidirectional portal into a simulation
> space. Originally grows from a seed planted outside ever village in
> Africa. You walk in, it does a complete infiltration of your body and
> uploads you to local simulation space while your body is cleared of
> parasites and otherwise patched up. When your meat body is cured you can
> go back into the real world, but inside is nicer so after a few times in
> and out most people just move over. They can still come out and the
> system
> keeps their meat memories tracking what goes on inside so there is no loss
> of continuity from going in and out.
> >>In an environment where the pull of whatever had cause the crash still
> >>existed, how would you keep up a human (meat body in the physical world)
> >>population of even 60 million if a remnant human population was seen to
> be
> >>desirable? (Like saving the ferrets from extinction but worse.)
> >
> >Depends on what caused the crash in the first place.
> If you could freely move in and out, but inside was just a more rewarding
> place by human standards . . . .
> What can you offer to keep people carrying on in the real world when it
> would be so easy to duck out?

I think you greatly overestimate the number of people who'd want to upload
themselves into a simulated world, or even see it as something other than
suicide. Sure, lots of people would, but there'd also be plenty who wouldn't
- try doing an informal poll (among normal people, not us technogeeks) and
see what percentage of yes and no you get.

- Russell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT