On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 06:51:43AM -0500, Tim Tyler via AGI wrote: > > No doubt our descendants will value biodiversity in their museums. that would be pointless. > However history shows that we don't value biodiversity that much. up until recently nature was thought to be limitless. > We're already in a anthropocentric mass extinction. and taking steps to avert it. it being one of the hottest topics of international gatherings of governments.
> The biodiversity > of Earth will probably prove to contain only relatively insignificant > knowledge - > since it is based on a one-size fits all genetic meterial, and an illogically > restricted set of amino acids and proteins. Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it isn't valuable. A very simple thought experiment can lead to understanding. Knowledge increases intellectual power. Knowledge derives from past experience. Biology has billions of years of past experience. Thus studying it can lead to increased knowledge. It's not the consitutents of biology that matter, it is the behaviour and adaptive capacity that it contributes. A Lichen ecosystem could be studied thoroughly to gain near endless insights for building offworld bases. It is always best to work ontop of what is known, than to flouder around with trial and error. disregarding biology is one of the stupidest things an intelligence can do. > Parts of Earth may be kept > as nature parks for their historical value. However we already see tarmac, > concrete and solar panels expanding on the Earth - displacing organic > forms. Cities are visible from space as blisters on the planet. expansion and reduction are always in a state of flux. Just like a sine-wave, it never goes one way for long. Smog has greatly declined since we found cleaner energy, and started filtering emissions. Recycling and compost reduces waste. > Humans > bring machines, and machines bring nanotechnology and robots - > which tend to compete with the organic realm for resources. Biology likes it wet, warm and sunny, technology likes it dry, cold and dark, a fundamental difference, leading to different biomes. dry, cold and dark are the biological deserts, wet is rust and short circuits. sunny is UV degradation, warm is over heating. > The idea that machines will have a better time elsewhere in the > universe doesn't matter. On Earth, life penetrates every niche. > Mammals have a better time on land - but they reinvaded the ocean > anyway - because they could. Similarly if machines can survive on > Earth, then they will do so. There are unoccupied or at least underoccupied niches on earth, such as the extremely cold and dry ones, such as mountain tops and polar deserts. These have great conditions for technological life, typically having lots of wind power and mineral resources. > > People regularly imagine machines expanding into the universe and > leaving the earth to the humans. It seems like wishful thinking to me. I agree, technology will continue to be on Earth, things generally only increase in complexity, as per the laws of entropy. > The earth is ground zero - the HQ of civilization and its first encampment. sounds pretty niave to me. > That will make it desirable real estate for all players for a while yet. the earth is made up of many playing fields. The whole continent of Antarctica, pretty much useless to biology, fertile ground for technology. -- Logan ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
