From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 15:55:28 MST
On Jan 20, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Charles D Hixson wrote:
> Then there's the argument of transcendence: nobody's willing to
> get that far
> away from their phone line. We already observe this, where
> tourists aren't
> very willing to go to places where McDonalds hasn't already
> implanted a
> "resturant". And it seems quite likely that things will only get more
> extreme. (Consider the frequency of couch potatoes.)
>
> Still, a speed limit would help explain the absence of robots.
> More likely,
> there's the what's to gain? argument to explain the absence of
> robots. If
> nobody's willing to go, then why bother to send more than a
> photographer (if
> that). And photographers might well choose to be inconspicuous, so
> as not to
> disrupt the scenery that they were shooting.
>
> Do you really think that mining over interstellar distances would
> be even
> plausibly profitable? Slavery? Why bother intruding, when you can
> get all
> the benefits more cheaply by running simulations?
Over interstellar distances, all mining is local. But automated local
mining is how one makes sure that, should one want to go places, there
will be a McDonald's there, to use your analogy.
With almost-in-reach tech, only a single individual has to choose to
do this in our past light cone to make us not have happened. If
intelligent life is common, this seems extremely implausible, no
matter how many interesting reasons to stay home there are. The
only reasonable conclusion is that we're the first, as far as I
can see.
But this was all hashed over decades ago, now. Is it that people
desperately want to believe in aliens?
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "It's alright, it's alright, 'cause the system never fails; The good guys are in power, and the bad guys are in jail."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT