On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 6:59 PM Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote: > > > > * you seem to think that a "normal" or "most probable" way to proceed for > technological civilisation is to go with such excessive consumption that it > would require sucking resources and energy of the whole galaxy. Myself, I > consider such way to be both abnormal and **abysmal.*
Even if wanting to do such a thing is abnormal if there are millions of civilizations and billions or trillions of individuals in each civilization then it's inevitable that some of them, or at least one of them, will want to do something that is not "normal", hell even I would want to do it although i'll concede I may not be entirely normal. As for "abysmal", well I can only speak for myself but I don't find anything particularly ignoble about wanting to reorganize dumb brainless matter into matter that can can think and solve some of the mysteries of the universe and even contemplate it's own existence, in fact I think such an activity would be about as noble as it's possible to be. * > Perhaps we do not see, do not hear from C-P civilisations, because for > them, there is a limit which they can hardly cross.* What limit are you referring to? > *Excessive consumption cannot go forever* No activity can go on forever but if you stop letting all those photons from trillions of suns radiate uselessly into infinite space and instead harness them to perform some useful work then things can go on for a hell of a lot longer than if you have some irrational moral scruple against increasing the amount of intelligent activity in the universe. * > This is why we do not see, do not hear from non-C-P civilisations.* So you think the reason the night sky does show any indication of having been engineered is that 100% of the intelligent beings in the observable universe have the exact same likes and dislikes as you do, not 99.99999999% but 100% . > *if they see someone who is stupid enough to make von Neumann probe, > they will execute such idiot in the name of their own safety.* That would be impossible because if they have von Neumann probes they can perform vastly more computations than those like you who refuse to make von Neumann probes, and so they will be much smarter than you. And it's just not possible to outsmart somebody who is smarter than you. > Hell, I think humans will almost certainly have the capability to make >> Von Neumann probes in less than 100 years, probably less than 50, maybe >> much less. > > > * > Oh really. * Yes really. *> So we have maybe fifty, maybe hundred years to live.* > I would be very surprised if there are still biological humans around in 100 years. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> 9u7 > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2qutMwkeqRLqUSh%3DB%2BUxUkKZBMjvaAxN%3Dw2yug-i3UvA%40mail.gmail.com.
