Dan Minet may be right in suggesting there is a
... good reason that advanced civilizations do not build Von
Neumann machines to explore the galaxy.
What would keep humans from setting up a radio transmitter that could
carry information a thousand light years or a radio receiver that is
sensitive enough to pick up a transmission from a thousand light years
away?
Both a receiver and a transmitter cost. Both require at least 20th
century technology. Suppose large funders had other things to do with
their money? Suppose we converted to a technology that did not
require as powerful radio transmissions or as great sensitivity? Then
too few would know the requisite technology. Either would prevent our
discovering technical, advanced extra-terrestial life that would
otherwise want to communicate with us.
And I can think of other reasons Earth civilizations might hold back.
This list does not even concern itself with non-human hostiles:
- military: will a warrior, say a warrior fighting a country such as
the US assymetrically, develop and release non-biological Von
Neumann machines, `grey goo', or biological ones, like small pox?
- economic: will those who use fossil energy sources put off too
long their conversion to non-fossil energy sources?
- political: will the powers that be delay instituting mechanisms
for handling global climate change?
Interestingly, all have to do with the size of impacts. If they were
smaller -- if the population were lower and we had a sufficiently
backward technology -- we could presume Earth were infinite and flat.
Bad impacts would fade away before they got big.
But huge amounts of dirt are moved by humans every year, huge amounts
of water consumed.
We humans can transform much before the feedbacks become dangerous on
a planetary scale. But when the impacts become really large, then we
have to think about the planet as a whole.
Millions of trees can be cut down. I don't think it would matter
terribly much to the planet if the whole northeastern part of the
United States were deforested again. Maybe it would have some effect,
because that is a big region. I mean, that kind of deforestation is
not trivial to the people or trees involved, but I think it is trivial
in terms of the world.
This is a practical matter. In our culture, people and markets do not
perceive non-linear effects that depend on much larger territories
than they imagine or much longer periods of time.
Worse, if those a person does not don't know did not exist, the person
would not be impacted. He or she could act as if the world were flat
and not a ball. So there is increased reason to dislike unknown
others ...
In the past, you might be killed by a saber-toothed tiger, but you
would not be hurt by the side effects of food growing on another
continent!
The solution is not to add complexity -- to put police over you to
help food being grown on another continent -- that is too expensive.
Besides, as a practical matter, except for a few, people prefer to
kill unknown others (or have a sub-group kill for them) and return to
what they think of as simplicity.
The solution is to change culture, to add frequently used indicators
of global impact.
Current images include the picture of the whole Earth taken from the
moon in the 1960s. That helps change culture, just as globes have for
the past 500 years.
Current indicators include that on world-wide dimming, an indicator of
high altitude aerosols, and world-wide carbon dioxide and methane
abundances, an indicator of climate change. Measures enable more
action than simple changes of culture.
--
Robert J. Chassell GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
