The old "Galactic Federation" meme
Damien Valentine
extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
things they would likely have in common are:
1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
"wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
3. The need for energy and raw materials to resist entropy.
4. An interest in avoiding "existential risks" to the entire species.
Perhaps a trade in knowledge, access to star systems, or perhaps
certain luxury items would bind this network together...though it's
hard to imagine a luxury good that appeals to Minbari, Ewoks and the
Horta. Probably some kind of co-operative defense would also be
included in the agreement; maybe the participating victors could share
the spoils among themselves to sweeten the pot? The simplest way to
make policy would seem to be majority vote; again, I doubt Minbari,
Ewoks and the Horta could unanimously agree on anything.
I can't figure how this alliance would deal with non-members. Would
it be safer to offer membership, and if they decline, destroy the
species as a possible threat?
How would they deal with species that do not have technology capable
of long-distance communication? Would they also be invited into the
alliance? Would they be ignored until they have said technology?
Would they be given the technology, and then invited?
And what would they do against disobedient or rebellious members?
Would they place a trade embargo? Would they go to war with them?
I've found a few links. Look them over and see what you think.
http://www.costik.com/inttrade.html
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/03/06/starship_traders
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
Magnum 360
I have to say I have thought about the same things. And the truth is
once a race has become a space power, not a early space power but one
that has some colonies and that sort of stuff I realy don't see much
that you would go to war over with another alien race.
Heres the main things I see for aliens wanting to go to war over
1st it helps if both races planets are about the same gravity which
means they maybe might go to war over land maybe, but mainly I only
see war happening if your race or starts raiding there trade or vise
versa. Other than that the only other thing I would say is religious
beliefs. And as far as trade goes I think things like spices and
different foods would be worth the most, followed by weapons and
starships, I think things like gold and silver and gems would realy
not be that valuable anymore.
So with that all said the main reasons for a alliance or federation
would be trade. And as for a rebllion they would just block trade from
that planet or just not care.
At any rate it more likely that race will be at war with its self than
with other aliens, which means humans will be fighting each other for
a long time.
Brian Davis
> ...the truth is once a race has become a space power, not a early
> space power but one that has some colonies and that sort of stuff
> I realy don't see much that you would go to war over with another
> alien race.
Read "The Killing Star" by Pellegrino and Zebrowski. R-bombing a
planet to extinctions because of the very very low probability but
extremely high consequence possibility that they might do it to you if
you don't do it first. I don't necessarily advocate that approach...
but it's not to hard to imagine this is an approach that might be the
fittest survival strategy out there (even to the point of being
automated by Von Neumann's or Berserkers, the originating species long
ago dying off for one reason or another).
Worse, I've yet to see a refutation of the idea I really felt was
ironclad. If you can start handling those sorts of power outputs, one
way or another R-bombing (or Nicoll-Dyson Lasers, or other such high-
level tech) becomes a real potential problem... for everybody.
What was the name of the story series where several interstellar races
trade via "sandboxed AI's" in the different home systems acting as
independent agents? One of the better potential economic solutions
I've seen presented in literature. Then there's also the 11B$ bottle
of wine:
http://www.costik.com/inttrade.html
--
Brian Davis
DJensen
> I've been thinking about how -- assuming they exist --
> extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
> things they would likely have in common are:
>
> 1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
> 2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
> at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
> "wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
The details of this second point determines everything.
If travel is STL and communication is bound by c, a federation is
unlikely to ever form and trade is certainly doubtful, and mutual
defence is simply out of the question. If communications are FTL but
travel is not, there could be significant exchanges of information, but
not much else. If travel is FTL, what is the likelihood that neither
species attempts to wipe out the other, take by force, or create some
other hindrance in the path of "federation" (rather than "empire")?
--
DJensen
A.G.McDowell
s.com>, Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> writes
>I've been thinking about how -- assuming they exist --
>extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
>things they would likely have in common are:
>
>1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
>2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
>at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
>"wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
>3. The need for energy and raw materials to resist entropy.
>4. An interest in avoiding "existential risks" to the entire species.
>
Unfortunately, having no good reason to go to war does not imply
universal peace.
Exchanging science and mathematics, and perhaps even agreeing plans for
future research, might be worthwhile. One existential risk is
exponential growth by any single species, because exponential
colonisation could consume the resources of a galaxy in a very finite
time. Here is a plan for "shrink wrap" licensing.
1. Astronomers finally find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence
and decode "The Package."
2. The Package contains everything from an axiomatic physics completely
explaining every physical phenomenon ever observed by mankind to
templates for likely medical breakthroughs in common body plans
(mathematicians and physicists get to become students again. Biologists
and Medics get hints for high payoff quick wins, and get to do more
research than ever before). By the way, P!=NP, but you need to know more
than that to understand the real situation.
3. By opening This Package (or not, actually) you accept the following
agreement: do what you like inside your own solar system. By all means
communicate with your new friends. Do anything that amounts to movement
outside it, or that could cloak such activity, and we remove you from
the Universe.
4. We hope that you find The Package impressive. Remember that you have
been decoding is a pattern of correlations in the brightness of several
variable stars. So don't even think about breaking the agreement.
--
A.G.McDowell
SolomonW
> The simplest way to
> make policy would seem to be majority vote; again, I doubt Minbari,
> Ewoks and the Horta could unanimously agree on anything.
Any society that gets on top of its world I expect to be composed of the
toughest group that its world have. They probably came to power by killing
off the weakest.
Why would they accept a majority vote unless it was in their interest.
James Nicoll
Brian Davis <brd...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:42�pm, Magnum 360 <magnus_2...@rock.com> wrote:
>
>> ...the truth is once a race has become a space power, not a early
>> space power but one that has some colonies and that sort of stuff
>> I realy don't see much that you would go to war over with another
>> alien race.
>
>Read "The Killing Star" by Pellegrino and Zebrowski. R-bombing a
>planet to extinctions because of the very very low probability but
>extremely high consequence possibility that they might do it to you if
>you don't do it first. I don't necessarily advocate that approach...
>but it's not to hard to imagine this is an approach that might be the
>fittest survival strategy out there (even to the point of being
>automated by Von Neumann's or Berserkers, the originating species long
>ago dying off for one reason or another).
>
>Worse, I've yet to see a refutation of the idea I really felt was
>ironclad. If you can start handling those sorts of power outputs, one
>way or another R-bombing (or Nicoll-Dyson Lasers, or other such high-
>level tech) becomes a real potential problem... for everybody.
R-bomb fleets will be visible across a good fraction of the
galaxy, alerting most of the high civilizations who existance justifies
r-bombs that there's a genocidal civilization that needs r-bombing.
R-bombing immediately puts a culture on the short list to be eliminated.
The Nicoll-Dyson laser is really only decisive as a weapon
against much punier civilization. It's roughly on par with the US
using its stock of H-bombs to deal with the menace presented by
one particular poor Somali farmer living in the back of beyond.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Brian Davis
> R-bomb fleets will be visible across a good fraction of the
> galaxy, alerting most of the high civilizations who existance
> justifies r-bombs that there's a genocidal civilization that
> needs r-bombing.
I wasn't aware of this. How so? And what's to prevent a low-energy VN
probe being used to set up remote bases to R-bomb from? I agree it's a
risky strategy to adopt... the problem I always come up with is that
it only takes one risky, or crazy, or insane race to start the
process... and it's gets very very hard to end.
> The Nicoll-Dyson laser is really only decisive as a weapon
> against much punier civilization. It's roughly on par with the US
> using its stock of H-bombs to deal with the menace presented by
> one particular poor Somali farmer living in the back of beyond.
Given the likely disparity between different interstellar races at a
given point in time, that might not be an unlikely comparison.
<grin>. Should have known better than to invoke your name :).
--
Brian Davis
hielan' laddie
(in article
<bbf9b743-afa4-43c9...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):
> I doubt Minbari,
> Ewoks and the Horta could unanimously agree on anything.
I would expect that Minbari and Horta would agree that Ewoks MUST BE
EXTERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. As soon as they're done exterminating
the Gungans, and right before obliterating the Jawas. One of the things that
show just how utterly evil the Empire was was the fact that Ewoks, Gungans,
and Jawas were not merely not exterminated, but were allowed to breed.
James Nicoll
Brian Davis <brd...@iusb.edu> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 10:45�am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> R-bomb fleets will be visible across a good fraction of the
>> galaxy, alerting most of the high civilizations who existance
>> justifies r-bombs that there's a genocidal civilization that
>> needs r-bombing.
>
>I wasn't aware of this. How so?
Not that it was intended for relativistic rockets but
trying plugging numbers from Pelligrino's rockets into John Schilling's
eqn here:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth
And that's with current sensors. Have I mentioned Nicoll-
Dyson telescopes yet?
> And what's to prevent a low-energy VN
>probe being used to set up remote bases to R-bomb from?
Time, I think. If the factories are not far away from the
genocides home system, it will be obvious who is at fault. If
they are far away, so much time will have passed since they were
launched that the target may no longer be vulnerable.
Brian Davis
> Not that it was intended for relativistic rockets but trying
> plugging numbers from Pelligrino's rockets into John Schilling's
> eqn here:
>
> http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth
I was looking at it from the standpoint of the target not being able
to observe the R-bombs coming, and the unlikelyhood (sp?) that a
random civilization would also see the R-bombing initial acceleration.
That 2nd gets back to how tightly constrained (solid angle) your
exhaust signature is (for an R-bombing scenario, setting up pickets
"around the system" isn't a realistic option... unless the possible
enemy is, once again, way beyond the R-bombing psychopaths in tech
almost to the point of transapience). It might work once. It might
work twice, but I can see that if you keep shooting away, somebody
bigger than you will see it. OK.
>> And what's to prevent a low-energy VN probe being used to
>> set up remote bases to R-bomb from?
>
> Time, I think. If the factories are not far away from the
> genocides home system, it will be obvious who is at fault. If
> they are far away, so much time will have passed since they were
> launched that the target may no longer be vulnerable.
I was thinking more of VN's expanding and setting up. Much later,
after the network is set up, these pre-installed bases can be
triggered to launch R-bomb attacks. A few thousand years could get you
out a goodly way, and given more time, bigger spheres.
Ideal? No... actually works better for close vs. far "primitives".
--
Brian Davis
Damien Valentine
First, I answer your question with a question: why would a bunch of
murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization? Maybe
it's a theocracy, or a technocracy, or a plutocracy. "Tough" doesn't
necessarily mean "psychopathic".
Damien Valentine
> Exchanging science and mathematics, and perhaps even agreeing plans for
> future research, might be worthwhile. One existential risk is
> exponential growth by any single species, because exponential
> colonisation could consume the resources of a galaxy in a very finite
> time. Here is a plan for "shrink wrap" licensing....
In other words, the basis of the Great Galactic Republic is that
nobody migrates beyond their home system. Fair enough, but supposing
somebody does, how do the rest of the homebodies stop it? And what do
they do with races who don't bother to decode The Package (or aren't
capable, for technical or psychological reasons) and go out colonizing
anyway?
Good point on the "exponential growth" problem, though. I'll give it
some thought.
SolomonW
Ever eat steak?
Bryan Derksen
And if there is a way for the Great Galactic Republic to "nuke" solar
systems that step out of line, why can't the targets use the same
technique on them first? It seems like rather than a peaceful unified
galactic federation this scenario would instead immediately devolve into
a hair-trigger network of MAD actors watching each other for the
slightest suspicious signal.
> Good point on the "exponential growth" problem, though. I'll give it
> some thought.
The problem with trying to stop life from replicating is that that's
pretty much the core description of what life _is_. And once an
exponentially-replicating life form gets out into the cosmos the
non-replicating life forms will find themselves rapidly outnumbered and
outflanked by it, so their containment methods only have to fail once to
bring the whole house of cards down. Classic Fermi paradox.
Damien Valentine
> Ever eat steak?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A flippant question deserves a fatuous answer:
Ever hear of vegetarians?
Erik Max Francis
> On Nov 10, 1:54 am, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
>> Ever eat steak?
>
>
> Ever hear of vegetarians?
I thought the same thing.
"What about the autotrophs? Won't someone _please_ think of the
autotrophs?!"
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Johnny1a
>
> First, I answer your question with a question: why would a bunch of
> murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization? Maybe
> it's a theocracy, or a technocracy, or a plutocracy. "Tough" doesn't
> necessarily mean "psychopathic".
No...but it does suggest at least a degree of strong self-interest,
which can operate to make one either cooperative or contentious
depending on context. Depending on the circumstances, a perfectly
rational, non-malicious sapient can still sometimes behave in
extremely ruthless ways.
I've never been a big believer in the concept of the multi-species
federation. The prototypical example in SF is in the _Lensman_
stories, it incorporates some seriously _alien_ sapients, and absent
the _dei ex machina_ of Arisia, I don't believe for a second that it
woould actually function.
Oddly, the Star Trek federation is a bit more believable, because
(thanks to the constraints of FX in the 60s), most of the aliens are
very, very, _very_ much like humans, and behave thus.
To put it another way, I could believe Humans and Vulcans in a
federated relationshipo, I find Humans and Palainians (from Lensman)
unbelievable. The trouble is that evolutinary theory suggests
'Palainians' are more likely than 'Vulcans'.
To
Johnny1a
> On Nov 9, 12:25 am, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Exchanging science and mathematics, and perhaps even agreeing plans for
> > future research, might be worthwhile. One existential risk is
> > exponential growth by any single species, because exponential
> > colonisation could consume the resources of a galaxy in a very finite
> > time. Here is a plan for "shrink wrap" licensing....
>
> In other words, the basis of the Great Galactic Republic is that
> nobody migrates beyond their home system. Fair enough, but supposing
> somebody does, how do the rest of the homebodies stop it?
It only works if there is some star-travelling enforcing power with
some serious firepower to back it up. In fact, it might emeerge as
the result of a paranoid 'no competetion' power that still had qualms
about genocide. Given that, all you need is for the dominant power to
remain 'in place' with steady policies for galactic ages.
Note, though, that given this last, the stealth problem largely goes
away. If you're operating time scale is thousands of years or more,
then 'no stealth in space', while true, ceases to matter all that much.
A.G.McDowell
.com>, Johnny1a <sherm...@hotmail.com> writes
how alien an alien might be. Another way to put this is: how much of
human behaviour would be forced on any intelligent evolved being, for
instance via game theory? Their strategies in noughts and crosses and
draughts would not surprise us, if they are competent, because both of
those are solved games. Similarly, I would guess that they would tend to
co-operate if asked, but to punish treachery, given sufficient
provocation, because that seems to be a good strategy in simple repeated
games. What would our Poker players make of/from them?
If enough emotional behaviour is in fact dictated by logic, they may be
people we can do business with, simply because they are closer to 1960s
Star Trek than to the universe of the lens. (I quite like James White's
multi-species federation, by the way).
--
A.G.McDowell
Damien Valentine
> No...but it does suggest at least a degree of strong self-interest,
> which can operate to make one either cooperative or contentious
> depending on context. Depending on the circumstances, a perfectly
> rational, non-malicious sapient can still sometimes behave in
> extremely ruthless ways.
I agree. The trick then would be to create a system where the context
favors cooperation rather than contentiousness. I'm just trying to
figure out what that system might look like. It seemed best to
identify what "self-interests" all possible intelligences would have
in common, and then to build a society where those needs are met. In
the title, I'm using "federation" in its broadest possible sense: feel
free to replace it with any other collective noun of your choice.
Erik Max Francis
> One of the interesting questions arising from Science Fiction is just
> how alien an alien might be. Another way to put this is: how much of
> human behaviour would be forced on any intelligent evolved being, for
> instance via game theory? Their strategies in noughts and crosses and
> draughts would not surprise us, if they are competent, because both of
> those are solved games. Similarly, I would guess that they would tend to
> co-operate if asked, but to punish treachery, given sufficient
> provocation, because that seems to be a good strategy in simple repeated
> games. What would our Poker players make of/from them?
They'd compute expectation values :-).
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
They have rights who dare defend them.
-- Roger Baldwin
Crown-Horned Snorkack
Let´s suppose that sending a small party of colonists to an
uninhabited system is expensive but affordable, but eventually gives a
modest return for investment.
Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
different or same species that is technologically developed and
populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
with no return for it.
Sending a sufficient force to conquer by force or wipe out a
technologically advanced and numerous planetary population is
logistically hard or even completely impossible and even if barely
possible, the returns in case of success are much lower than the
costs.
In that case, no one would attack a system settled by advanced and
numerous civilization. An inhabited system would simply be passed
around or over because the cost-effective thing is to settle next
available uninhabited system.
Now, a system which has sentient and intelligent but not
technologically advanced people could be ridden roughshod over,
precisely because they do not have the technology for successful
defence.
And if two colonist parties happen to meet on an otherwise uninhabited
system, where neither is yet numerous, there is also chance for
violence.
But otherwise, setup where wars are fruitless and too expensive seems
to be possible...
DJensen
> On 9 nov, 07:58, DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> Damien Valentine wrote:
>>> I've been thinking about how -- assuming they exist --
>>> extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
>>> things they would likely have in common are:
>>> 1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
>>> 2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
>>> at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
>>> "wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
>> The details of this second point determines everything.
>>
>> If travel is STL and communication is bound by c, a federation is
>> unlikely to ever form and trade is certainly doubtful, and mutual
>> defence is simply out of the question. If communications are FTL but
>> travel is not, there could be significant exchanges of information, but
>> not much else. If travel is FTL, what is the likelihood that neither
>> species attempts to wipe out the other, take by force, or create some
>> other hindrance in the path of "federation" (rather than "empire")?
>>
> What is the reward for it? Its return for investment?
The continued survival of your own civilization and species. Doubly so
if the civilization you encounter is more advanced than your own; their
ability to wipe you out (simply existing can be construed as a threat,
sending colony ships is the opening salvo in war) means you have more to
lose and more reason to throw everything you have at them.
If the civilization you encounter is centuries behind you, you have all
the advantages that matter when it comes to economic and political
relations -- empire is more likely that federation.
--
DJensen
James Nicoll
Crown-Horned Snorkack <chorned...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
>Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
>different or same species that is technologically developed and
>populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
>the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
>home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
>with no return for it.
>
should prefer underpopulated nations as destination, all things being
equal, and yet the existance of a developed economy at the destination
seems to be attractive.
Bryan Derksen
> In article <fc7ea4cb-8950-42ce...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Crown-Horned Snorkack <chorned...@hush.ai> wrote:
>> Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
>> different or same species that is technologically developed and
>> populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
>> the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
>> home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
>> with no return for it.
>>
> This appears to predict modern day international migration
> should prefer underpopulated nations as destination, all things being
> equal, and yet the existance of a developed economy at the destination
> seems to be attractive.
Travel between nations is cheap enough that it can be self-funded, so
the "return on investment" only needs to be considered by the
individuals who are actually going there. Even if they never send one
penny back to their homeland, they can still personally profit from the
trip. Whether this would be the case for interstellar travel remains to
be seen. One can hypothesize scenarios that go either way.
Personally, barring unexpected physics, I suspect that the most
plausible scenario will involve relatively self-sufficient space
habitats that fill up their home solar systems and then start diffusing
out into other ones. I suppose you could get reasonably peaceful
intermingling of cultures this way, though individual habitats could
just as easily house raging xenophobes as they do willing traders.
Howard Brazee
<bryan....@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Personally, barring unexpected physics, I suspect that the most
>plausible scenario will involve relatively self-sufficient space
>habitats that fill up their home solar systems and then start diffusing
>out into other ones. I suppose you could get reasonably peaceful
>intermingling of cultures this way, though individual habitats could
>just as easily house raging xenophobes as they do willing traders.
It all depends upon costs. Some people will want to get far enough
away to be the start of something new.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Johnny1a
> In article <fc7ea4cb-8950-42ce-a928-fe5aa607f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> >Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
> >different or same species that is technologically developed and
> >populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
> >the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
> >home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
> >with no return for it.
>
> This appears to predict modern day international migration
> should prefer underpopulated nations as destination, all things being
> equal, and yet the existance of a developed economy at the destination
> seems to be attractive.
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Modern-day migration isn't centrally about colonization and
settlement. It's an entirely different phenomenon, predicated on
there being an economic motive on the part of the destination society
to accept the migrant (i.e. cheap labor, usually).
For a better comparison, suppose hypothetically than during the 15th
and 16th centuries, North America had been home to a society
technologically and economically comparable to Europe, while South
America was uninhabited. North America would become the other nexus
of a trade relationship or the enemy in war (or probably both over
time), South America would be a site for settlement as New Europe.
(Assuming for some reason the North Americans didn't already have it
settled in this time line.)
Michael Price
> > Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
> >> Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
> >> different or same species that is technologically developed and
> >> populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
> >> the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
> >> home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
> >> with no return for it.
>
> > This appears to predict modern day international migration
> > should prefer underpopulated nations as destination, all things being
> > equal, and yet the existance of a developed economy at the destination
> > seems to be attractive.
>
> Travel between nations is cheap enough that it can be self-funded, so
> the "return on investment" only needs to be considered by the
> individuals who are actually going there.
Irrelevant, if there is an economic return then who funds doesn't
matter,
neither does the amount of investment required. If the funds can be
raised on a reasonable expectation of sufficient return then they will
be.
If such return is sufficient then the funding body can get their money
from the people they send their or their employers/customers. All
that
is needed is the ability to make contracts that are enforceable over
interstellar distances between places close enough to provide value
to each other. This is politically almost inevitable since such a
capacity
adds great value to both societies.
What is relevant is whether there is greater value in having lots of
natural
resources you don't have to compete for at the destination or a
working
economy that you can interact with. While too much competition for
natural
resources will of course remove the original incentive for leaving,
the working
economy is very good. Trying to create all the infrastructure and
economies
of scale yourself is very difficult. Once the place is starting to
get going it's
much cheaper to get started doing something productive there.
Modern
economies only work BIG. The people already there will love the
greater
economies of scale while keeping as much as possible of the benefits
of
being there first (primarily the fact that they grabbed the resources
and
latecomers have to pay for them).
> Even if they never send one penny back to their homeland, they can
> still personally profit from the trip.
Which means that even if the settlers can not send a penny of value
back to the home planet they can still benefit by paying for
emigration.
Simply sell enough capital on the home planet to pay for the trip,
land
and start raking in the dough. This relies on an increase in
effective
income from being there, but that's a requirement for any non-
ideological
settlement, which is to say any major settlement.
> Whether this would be the case for
> interstellar travel remains to be seen. One can hypothesize scenarios
> that go either way.
>
> Personally, barring unexpected physics, I suspect that the most
> plausible scenario will involve relatively self-sufficient space
> habitats that fill up their home solar systems and then start diffusing
> out into other ones. I suppose you could get reasonably peaceful
> intermingling of cultures this way, though individual habitats could
> just as easily house raging xenophobes as they do willing traders.
If they can trade they can settle, easily.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > On 9 nov, 07:58, DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> Damien Valentine wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking about how -- assuming they exist --
> >>> extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
> >>> things they would likely have in common are:
> >>> 1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
> >>> 2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
> >>> at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
> >>> "wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
> >> The details of this second point determines everything.
>
> >> If travel is STL and communication is bound by c, a federation is
> >> unlikely to ever form and trade is certainly doubtful, and mutual
> >> defence is simply out of the question. If communications are FTL but
> >> travel is not, there could be significant exchanges of information, but
> >> not much else. If travel is FTL, what is the likelihood that neither
> >> species attempts to wipe out the other, take by force, or create some
> >> other hindrance in the path of "federation" (rather than "empire")?
>
> > What is the reward for it? Its return for investment?
>
> The continued survival of your own civilization and species.
If it is in danger.
> Doubly so if the civilization you encounter is more advanced than your own; their
> ability to wipe you out
But do they have such an ability?
It is entirely plausible that because of the distance they cannot with
all effort be more than a minor nuisance.
> (simply existing can be construed as a threat, sending colony ships is the
> opening salvo in war)
Do colony ships have the means to win a war against technologically
advanced and numerous civilization?
> means you have more to lose and more reason to throw everything you have at > them.
But if you can wipe out the colony ships without throwing everything
you have at them, assured capability to do likewise with any future
ships that might be sent and overwhelming probability that no further
colony ships would be sent (due to certainty that they would likewise
be wiped out), what is the point at throwing anything at the
civilization that sent them out?
Damien Valentine
their generation ark to Altair seems fundamentally different from,
say, Cubans riding a raft to Miami. I'm not sure why 20th/21st
century models would apply in this case.
Crown-Horned Snorkack
> On Nov 15, 2:51 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <fc7ea4cb-8950-42ce-a928-fe5aa607f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> > >Sending that small party to a system already inhabited, whether by
> > >different or same species that is technologically developed and
> > >populous means they defenders have overwhelming advantages. Whether
> > >the settlers are wiped out or whether they survive through returning
> > >home or settling peacefully with the locals, the investment is lost
> > >with no return for it.
>
> > This appears to predict modern day international migration
> > should prefer underpopulated nations as destination, all things being
> > equal, and yet the existance of a developed economy at the destination
> > seems to be attractive.
> > defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
>
> Modern-day migration isn't centrally about colonization and
> settlement. It's an entirely different phenomenon, predicated on
> there being an economic motive on the part of the destination society
> to accept the migrant (i.e. cheap labor, usually).
>
> For a better comparison, suppose hypothetically than during the 15th
> and 16th centuries, North America had been home to a society
> technologically and economically comparable to Europe, while South
> America was uninhabited. North America would become the other nexus
> of a trade relationship or the enemy in war (or probably both over
> time), South America would be a site for settlement as New Europe.
>
> (Assuming for some reason the North Americans didn't already have it
> settled in this time line.)
Exchange North America with Central America and South America with
North America, and "uninhabited" with "sparsely inhabited", and you
will end up with truth, not hypotheticals.
15th and 16th century Portuguese did settle uninhabited Madeira and
Azores. But then they discovered and ignored uninhabited Saint Helena,
Seychelles and Mascarenes while trading with and conquering
economically advanced South and East Asia..
The Spaniards ignored the uninhabited Bermudas and also Bahamas after
exterminating the natives, and conquered Central and South America
while ignoring the sparsely settled North America. Moving to Mexico
where they could exploit local Indians provided return on investment
for 16th century Spaniard. Farming Bermudas or Virginia where locals
were absent or too few and too savage to exploit was insufficient
return on investment.
In 17th, 18th and 19th century, the English got better at sailing. And
now the incentives were opposite. The return on investment for an
English peasant moving to America, Canada or Australia to farm there
was still small, but now the investment itself could be afforded, and
many English did sail. The English also did trade with and conquer
economically advanced and populous India and Africa. A few Englishmen
did go to India, and got a huge return for their investment, by
becoming army and government officials or large business owners. But
the Englishmen in India were few, because moving to India to compete
with the native Indians for middle class jobs did not give such
returns on investment as moving to empty Australia for unqualified
labour did.
DJensen
> On 15 nov, 22:48, DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
>>> On 9 nov, 07:58, DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>> Damien Valentine wrote:
>>>>> I've been thinking about how -- assuming they exist --
>>>>> extraterrestrial species could co-operate with each other. The only
>>>>> things they would likely have in common are:
>>>>> 1. An understanding of science and mathematics.
>>>>> 2. A technology capable of communicating across light-years, at least
>>>>> at the level of radio transmissions (if not some kind of hand-waved
>>>>> "wormholes" or "warp drives" or etc.).
>>>> The details of this second point determines everything.
>>>> If travel is STL and communication is bound by c, a federation is
>>>> unlikely to ever form and trade is certainly doubtful, and mutual
>>>> defence is simply out of the question. If communications are FTL but
>>>> travel is not, there could be significant exchanges of information, but
>>>> not much else. If travel is FTL, what is the likelihood that neither
>>>> species attempts to wipe out the other, take by force, or create some
>>>> other hindrance in the path of "federation" (rather than "empire")?
>>> What is the reward for it? Its return for investment?
>> The continued survival of your own civilization and species.
>
> If it is in danger.
Wouldn't it be best to assume it is? Hell of a risk, if you don't.
>> (simply existing can be construed as a threat, sending colony ships is the
>> opening salvo in war)
>
> Do colony ships have the means to win a war against technologically
> advanced and numerous civilization?
A pipe bomb won't bring a nation to its knees in surrender, but it isn't
brushed off as harmless either.
>> means you have more to lose and more reason to throw everything you have at > them.
>
> But if you can wipe out the colony ships without throwing everything
> you have at them, assured capability to do likewise with any future
> ships that might be sent and overwhelming probability that no further
> colony ships would be sent (due to certainty that they would likewise
> be wiped out), what is the point at throwing anything at the
> civilization that sent them out?
Not at all. Ships carrying bombs instead of colonists won't behave the
same (ie, they won't try to land, they may not even attempt to orbit),
but why send bombs when you could accelerate a stream of comets from
their Oort cloud?
--
DJensen
Damien Valentine
> A pipe bomb won't bring a nation to its knees in surrender, but it isn't
> brushed off as harmless either.
But the people bringing pipe-bombs to an A-bomb fight are probably
just going to tick the other side off. If you *know* the other side
is more advanced and numerous, there's no point sending an
expeditionary force that's inevitably going to be
annihilated...especially since the other side will realize you're a
threat and send starships to your homeworld in retaliation.
> Not at all. Ships carrying bombs instead of colonists won't behave the
> same (ie, they won't try to land, they may not even attempt to orbit),
> but why send bombs when you could accelerate a stream of comets from
> their Oort cloud?
Because the comets still wouldn't reach their targets for decades, and
they could always be destroyed or deflected (by a sufficiently
advanced species) just prior to arrival.
Michael Price
If they're "in charge" in the sense of being a government then
they're
by definition Ok with murdering people to maintain control. They
might not
have come to power by genocide, but certainly by making it clear they
will shoot to kill and convincing people to support them in that. And
given
the inherent problems of reconciling the interests of the people in
geographically limited areas they'd have to be fairly brutal. How do
you reconcile 6 billion interests of people differing in practically
every respect? It doesn't matter if it's a "theocracy",
"technocracy" or
whatever. Either it's an anarchy or the people in charge are OK with
killing.
Michael Price
Vulcans are vulcans because they made a fundamental change in their
society, not because of biology. Now sure you could argue that the
philosophical change the Vulcans underwent would not be self-
sustaining
in a memetic evolutionary enviroment, but I don't know that that's
true.
Would the philosophy tend to reproduce itself to such an extent that
it's
practically universal? If not then you're right they' not at all
likely. If it is
then they're at least plausible in certain contexts.
Damien Valentine
> > First, I answer your question with a question: why would a bunch of
> > murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization? Maybe
> > it's a theocracy, or a technocracy, or a plutocracy. "Tough" doesn't
> > necessarily mean "psychopathic".
>
> If they're "in charge" in the sense of being a government then
> they're
> by definition Ok with murdering people to maintain control. They
> might not
> have come to power by genocide, but certainly by making it clear they
> will shoot to kill and convincing people to support them in that. And
> given
> the inherent problems of reconciling the interests of the people in
> geographically limited areas they'd have to be fairly brutal. How do
> you reconcile 6 billion interests of people differing in practically
> every respect? It doesn't matter if it's a "theocracy",
> "technocracy" or
> whatever. Either it's an anarchy or the people in charge are OK with
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even if we were only considering humans, your definition of authority
is seriously flawed. But that aside (since I'm not likely to change
your opinions about the use of force, and this isn't the appropriate
thread for that anyway) we're *not* only considering humans. We're
considering a group of beings that could be so different from humanity
-- hive-mind species, glowing plasma creatures that evolved on neutron
stars, superintelligent shades of blue -- that our concepts of power
simply do not apply. To restate the question, "By what means could
this collection of wildly alien psychologies form some sort of
cooperative, mutually beneficial enterprise?"
Suzanne Blom
"Damien Valentine" <vale...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:666eeb0b-2e34-4c6e...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I do think though that the question answers the question of whether there
are any nasty interstellar empires around. Clearly, it is better to get rid
of technological species before they come out to meet you. The fact that no
comets have destroyed us is a sign that any "nearby" empires are all
peaceful.
OTOH, there is some evidence of a nasty empire 65million years ago. ;-)
Michael Price
If it's cooperative and mutually beneficial it's not a State. A
State
by definition is based on coercion, which has not been mutually
beneficial AFAIK in history. Either it's a "government" as we know
it
or it's not based on shooting people who disagree, not both. And that
applies whether "people" means humans, Kzin, or plasma creatures
etc. The only exception is a global hive mind, but I don't see how
that would
evolve.
Damien Valentine
> If it's cooperative and mutually beneficial it's not a State. A
> State
> by definition is based on coercion, which has not been mutually
> beneficial AFAIK in history. Either it's a "government" as we know
> it
> or it's not based on shooting people who disagree, not both. And that
> applies whether "people" means humans, Kzin, or plasma creatures
> etc. The only exception is a global hive mind, but I don't see how
> that would
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then call it a "free market" or a "libertarian collective" if that
rocks your socks. If you think that alien species would be too
different to ever practice trade, mutual defense, etc., then tell me
why you think so. If you think they're not...but they could still do
those things without any kind of rules, mores, laws, policies
etc. ...then tell me why you think so.
If all you can do is talk about how evil governments are, while
blithely ignoring my several reminders that I'm using terms like
"Galactic Federation" as shorthand anyway, then sorry, I'm not
interested.
Damien Valentine
> ..Clearly, it is better to get rid
> of technological species before they come out to meet you.
It's less obvious to me than it is to you. Could you explain?
Michael Price
> On Nov 25, 1:43 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If it's cooperative and mutually beneficial it's not a State. A
> > State
> > by definition is based on coercion, which has not been mutually
> > beneficial AFAIK in history. Either it's a "government" as we know
> > it
> > or it's not based on shooting people who disagree, not both. And that
> > applies whether "people" means humans, Kzin, or plasma creatures
> > etc. The only exception is a global hive mind, but I don't see how
> > that would
> > evolve.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Then call it a "free market" or a "libertarian collective" if that
> rocks your socks. If you think that alien species would be too
> different to ever practice trade, mutual defense, etc., then tell me
> why you think so.
No I don't think so, why would you think I did?
> If you think they're not...but they could still do
> those things without any kind of rules, mores, laws, policies
> etc. ...then tell me why you think so.
Who said anything about not having rules, mores or laws?
>
> If all you can do is talk about how evil governments are, while
> blithely ignoring my several reminders that I'm using terms like
> "Galactic Federation" as shorthand anyway, then sorry, I'm not
> interested.
I did not ignore anything. You asked "why would a bunch of
murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization?".
I answered you. If by "in control" you mean "are the State"
then by definition they're murderers, at least in principle. If
you mean "in control" in another sense, what do you mean?
Damien Valentine
> > Then call it a "free market" or a "libertarian collective" if that
> > rocks your socks. If you think that alien species would be too
> > different to ever practice trade, mutual defense, etc., then tell me
> > why you think so.
>
> No I don't think so, why would you think I did?
Because it's been obvious to everyone else on the thread that these
activities are what I meant. You, Mr. Price, are the only one having
difficulty with this.
> > If you think they're not...but they could still do
> > those things without any kind of rules, mores, laws, policies
> > etc. ...then tell me why you think so.
>
> Who said anything about not having rules, mores or laws?
Well, you kind of need those things if you're going to have a
cooperative enterprise. Even if it's on the level of "we put our
beads and trinkets in a big pile on the beach, and then you put as
much gold as you think it's worth in a little pile next to it", you
still need some way to make sure that it doesn't devolve into "...and
then we come back and murder you all if we don't like your offer".
Not necessarily something on the level of "Robert's Rules of Order",
but still something.
> I did not ignore anything. You asked "why would a bunch of
> murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization?".
> I answered you. If by "in control" you mean "are the State"
> then by definition they're murderers, at least in principle. If
> you mean "in control" in another sense, what do you mean?
It doesn't take that much effort to hypothesize alternatives to the
kind of state you're thinking of: one held together solely by the
threat of armed force and capital punishment. For example, maybe the
ruling caste has such a good grasp of psychology that they can simply
brainwash the proles into wanting what the rulers want. Or maybe
control is exerted by a corporation which has a monopoly on some
necessary resource. Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
only ever had one opinion in the first place. Or the organisms'
brains are so bizarre (from our perspective) that they literally
cannot imagine harming other members of their species. Or... Et
cetera.
Michael Price
> On Nov 27, 12:10 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then call it a "free market" or a "libertarian collective" if that
> > > rocks your socks. If you think that alien species would be too
> > > different to ever practice trade, mutual defense, etc., then tell me
> > > why you think so.
>
> > No I don't think so, why would you think I did?
>
> Because it's been obvious to everyone else on the thread that these
> activities are what I meant. You, Mr. Price, are the only one having
> difficulty with this.
>
meant.
If people are "in charge" in the sense of being what we now call
a government then they're Ok with shooting people to get their way,
by definition. If you mean "in charge" in a different way then what
do you mean? I never said anything that implied that alien species
would be too different to practice anything.
> > > If you think they're not...but they could still do
> > > those things without any kind of rules, mores, laws, policies
> > > etc. ...then tell me why you think so.
>
> > Who said anything about not having rules, mores or laws?
>
> Well, you kind of need those things if you're going to have a
> cooperative enterprise.
I agree, but where did I say anything about not having them?
> Even if it's on the level of "we put our
> beads and trinkets in a big pile on the beach, and then you put as
> much gold as you think it's worth in a little pile next to it", you
> still need some way to make sure that it doesn't devolve into "...and
> then we come back and murder you all if we don't like your offer".
> Not necessarily something on the level of "Robert's Rules of Order",
> but still something.
>
Agreed, but when did I say anything about not having that? I made a
comment on people being "in charge" not about having rules. You can
have nobody in charge and still have rules. That seems to be the
problem,
you assume because I'm against having people in charge I'm against
having rules. I'm not, in fact having rules is one of the main
advantages
in not having anyone in charge.
> > I did not ignore anything. You asked "why would a bunch of
> > murderers necessarily be in control of a global civilization?".
> > I answered you. If by "in control" you mean "are the State"
> > then by definition they're murderers, at least in principle. If
> > you mean "in control" in another sense, what do you mean?
>
> It doesn't take that much effort to hypothesize alternatives to the
> kind of state you're thinking of: one held together solely by the
> threat of armed force and capital punishment. For example, maybe the
> ruling caste has such a good grasp of psychology that they can simply
> brainwash the proles into wanting what the rulers want.
That's really hard to imagine given that it's really hard to keep a
monopoly
of "a good grasp of psychology".
> Or maybe
> control is exerted by a corporation which has a monopoly on some
> necessary resource.
Historically monopolies are the result of government force. Even if
they weren't why would such a monopoly want to be in charge of
how aliens are dealt with? Sure they could boycott people who didn't
do what they wanted, but that's effectively paying people to do what
you want, which isn't really being in charge. It's just being very
rich.
Resources don't tend to stay "necessary" for very long if they are
monopolised and kept expensive/restricted.
> Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
> only ever had one opinion in the first place.
And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
killed it's creators?
> Or the organisms' brains are so bizarre (from our perspective) that they literally
> cannot imagine harming other members of their species.
Then how are any of them "in charge"? If they can't harm other
members of
their species then getting others to do what they want? Any answer
you come
up with is consensual and so not really "being in charge".
> Or... Et cetera.
Suzanne Blom
Well, in Earth terms, if you wait until they're sailing up the river to your
capital city, it's harder to defeat them than if you wipe them out before
they develop boats.
Dorothy J Heydt
Shades of Leinster, _The Black Galaxy_, and ... there's another
one like that, more recent and better known only I'm blanking on
it, dammit.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Bryan Derksen
> On Nov 28, 9:18 am, Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No I'm having difficulty trying to understand what you think I
> meant.
> If people are "in charge" in the sense of being what we now call
> a government then they're Ok with shooting people to get their way,
> by definition.
You can add me to the list of people who find this to be an unusual
definition of being "in charge". At my current place of employment there
are people who are "in charge" of other people, but I'm quite confident
that none of them would be OK with shooting the people they're in charge
of if they got out of line.
Aside from Nerf weaponry, of course. There's a lot of that floating
around the office.
>> Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
>> only ever had one opinion in the first place.
>
> And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
> killed it's creators?
There are plenty of ways that might happen. Its creators might have died
out for other reasons - natural disaster, self-extermination in a war,
being wiped out by hostile aliens, etc. Or its creators might still be
alive and well back on their homeworld, now simply ignored by their
former servant.
>> Or the organisms' brains are so bizarre (from our perspective) that they literally
>> cannot imagine harming other members of their species.
>
> Then how are any of them "in charge"? If they can't harm other
> members of their species then getting others to do what they want?
> Any answer you come up with is consensual and so not really "being in charge".
I really don't understand why you think consent is incompatible with
someone being "in charge."
If there's a species where certain members are naturally extremely
clever and good at organizing things, and the rest of the species'
members instinctively recognize this and voluntarily follow whatever
suggestions the clever ones come up with despite the fact that the
clever ones have no ability to physically force them to comply, how
would you describe that relationship?
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 9:18 am, Damien Valentine <valen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No I'm having difficulty trying to understand what you think I
> > meant. If people are "in charge" in the sense of being what we now call
> > a government then they're Ok with shooting people to get their way,
> > by definition.
>
> You can add me to the list of people who find this to be an unusual
> definition of being "in charge". At my current place of employment there
> are people who are "in charge" of other people, but I'm quite confident
> that none of them would be OK with shooting the people they're in charge
> of if they got out of line.
The people "in charge" of your country are exactly as I described.
We
were not discussing people "in charge" of a company, but a world.
>
> Aside from Nerf weaponry, of course. There's a lot of that floating
> around the office.
>
> >> Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
> >> only ever had one opinion in the first place.
>
> > And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
> > killed it's creators?
>
> There are plenty of ways that might happen. Its creators might have died
> out for other reasons - natural disaster, self-extermination in a war,
> being wiped out by hostile aliens, etc. Or its creators might still be
> alive and well back on their homeworld, now simply ignored by their
> former servant.
>
Hard to see how a species capable of creating a robot hive-mind
could
be wiped on in a disaster, natural or otherwise, or a war. And if the
hostile
aliens wiped on their creators, shouldn't they be doing something
about it?
Or are we assuming that the RHM is the last one standing in the war?
That makes more sense. If the creators lost control of their RHM then
that's a pretty expensive mistake to make. Probably one of the most
significant things to happen to them in quite a while.
> >> Or the organisms' brains are so bizarre (from our perspective) that they literally
> >> cannot imagine harming other members of their species.
>
> > Then how are any of them "in charge"? If they can't harm other
> > members of their species then getting others to do what they want?
> > Any answer you come up with is consensual and so not really "being in charge".
>
> I really don't understand why you think consent is incompatible with
> someone being "in charge."
>
I'm just asking for a definition of "in charge". What does he mean?
Because he discussed people "in charge" of a whole world. I don't see
how you get the consent of a world.
> If there's a species where certain members are naturally extremely
> clever and good at organizing things, and the rest of the species'
> members instinctively recognize this and voluntarily follow whatever
> suggestions the clever ones come up with despite the fact that the
> clever ones have no ability to physically force them to comply, how
> would you describe that relationship?
What they all follow one group? There aren't at least two groups
with different agendas? The question isn't who's good at organising
things but what sort of things should be organised. If you settle
this
question consensually a lot of different, often contradictory, things
will be organised, none of them by someone who could be discribed
as "in charge" of a world.
Michael Price
> "Damien Valentine" <valen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well no, if you're technologically superior then it's even easier to
defeat
them when they're sailing up the river. Just lean out the window and
shoot them. When you factor in the economic/technical advances you'd
get not wasting resources on early genocide it's cheap to wait before
fighting.
The question is whether their ability to resist damage due to being
more
numberous, and having more and better stuff grows faster than your
ability
to develop and produce weapons to destroy them. Before about 1200
economic growth is negligible. Hell it was negligible for a lot of
the world
before 1800.
After the industrial revolution it's easy to destroy much of
their production capacity without suffering losses. Consider how
victorian
England would respond to a fleet of B -17s. Then add 100 years of
development. The resulting economic disruption will push population
growth negative for years if you're ruthless. As long as you can keep
them disrupted enough for net investment to be negative they're toast
and it doesn't cost much.
Damien Valentine
> Well, in Earth terms, if you wait until they're sailing up the river to your
> capital city, it's harder to defeat them than if you wipe them out before
> they develop boats.
Quite. On the other hand, if they're still at that stage, why bother
wiping them out in the first place? Wouldn't it be possible to
assimilate them into your own culture, or exploit them while keeping
them permanently at a prehistoric level?
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 1, 7:34 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>> Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
>>>> only ever had one opinion in the first place.
>>> And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
>>> killed it's creators?
>> There are plenty of ways that might happen. Its creators might have died
>> out for other reasons - natural disaster, self-extermination in a war,
>> being wiped out by hostile aliens, etc. Or its creators might still be
>> alive and well back on their homeworld, now simply ignored by their
>> former servant.
>>
> Hard to see how a species capable of creating a robot hive-mind
> could be wiped on in a disaster, natural or otherwise, or a war.
The robots may not have been very sophisticated or well-established yet
back when the disaster happened to prevent it. Space-based robot
ecologies could be quite a bit more inherently robust than planetbound
organic ones, I can think of all sorts of really nasty situations that
could toast an Earthlike planet that would be survivable by robots
elsewhere in the solar system. Colossal impactors, superplagues, gamma
ray bursters or nearby supernovas, runaway greenhouse, and so forth.
Or perhaps they were involved in wiping out their creators because their
creators _ordered_ them to do it, out of ignorance or short-sightedness
or some other more alien purpose, and the robots weren't capable of
disobeying the orders. A sort of species-level assisted suicide.
> And if the hostile aliens wiped on their creators, shouldn't they be
> doing something about it?
Why? If the aliens aren't hostile toward the robots there isn't
necessarily a reason to hit them back. Wars can end without total
victory being achieved by either side.
> Or are we assuming that the RHM is the last one standing in the war?
> That makes more sense. If the creators lost control of their RHM then
> that's a pretty expensive mistake to make. Probably one of the most
> significant things to happen to them in quite a while.
Maybe the aliens even deliberately "freed" their robots for some reason.
Cultural shifts, sabotage by hackers, or just a loosening of programmed
restrictions for short-term pragmatic reasons that results in unforseen
long-term independence.
The point is not that any of these outcomes is in itself particularly
likely, the point is just that these are reasonably _possible_
approaches to having a free-willed robotic hive mind species that's not
homicidal.
Heck, a robotic hive mind might even go full-out stereotypical Skynet,
wipe out its creators in a deliberate campaign of extermination, and
then go on to be perfectly good and peaceful neighbors to other organic
alien species in the galaxy. It all depends _why_ they decide to wipe
out their creators.
>> If there's a species where certain members are naturally extremely
>> clever and good at organizing things, and the rest of the species'
>> members instinctively recognize this and voluntarily follow whatever
>> suggestions the clever ones come up with despite the fact that the
>> clever ones have no ability to physically force them to comply, how
>> would you describe that relationship?
>
> What they all follow one group? There aren't at least two groups
> with different agendas? The question isn't who's good at organising
> things but what sort of things should be organised. If you settle
> this question consensually a lot of different, often contradictory, things
> will be organised, none of them by someone who could be discribed
> as "in charge" of a world.
Okay, so let's scale it up to the size of a world. The alien culture
goes and builds themselves a super-smart artificial Organizing Mind
that's capable of running the whole shebang, and thanks to their natural
acceptance of smarter controlling intelligences established earlier in
their evolution they willingly do everything it tells them to, even
though it's just a giant brain in a jar that can't possibly shoot them
even if it wants to. Is it "in charge"?
Richard Kennaway
> And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
> killed it's creators?
The hive mind is what its creators developed into, via Aumann's
Agreement Theorem and strong materialism.
--
Richard Kennaway
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 7:34 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >>>> Or it's a robot hive-mind where the whole planet
> >>>> only ever had one opinion in the first place.
> >>> And how did the robot hive-mind get in charge unless it
> >>> killed it's creators?
> >> There are plenty of ways that might happen. Its creators might have died
> >> out for other reasons - natural disaster, self-extermination in a war,
> >> being wiped out by hostile aliens, etc. Or its creators might still be
> >> alive and well back on their homeworld, now simply ignored by their
> >> former servant.
>
> > Hard to see how a species capable of creating a robot hive-mind
> > could be wiped on in a disaster, natural or otherwise, or a war.
>
> The robots may not have been very sophisticated or well-established yet
> back when the disaster happened to prevent it.
Still, even without the RHM they're pretty sophisticated, hard to
see a disaster
that could wipe them out.
> Space-based robot
> ecologies could be quite a bit more inherently robust than planetbound
> organic ones, I can think of all sorts of really nasty situations that
> could toast an Earthlike planet that would be survivable by robots
> elsewhere in the solar system. Colossal impactors, superplagues, gamma
> ray bursters
That would fry the space-based robots first, no atmosphere shielding
and
the planets not in the way for
> or nearby supernovas, runaway greenhouse,
Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
not
species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
everyone
who tries to take it.
> and so forth.
>
> Or perhaps they were involved in wiping out their creators because their
> creators _ordered_ them to do it, out of ignorance or short-sightedness
> or some other more alien purpose, and the robots weren't capable of
> disobeying the orders. A sort of species-level assisted suicide.
>
What everyone wanted to die?
> > And if the hostile aliens wiped on their creators, shouldn't they be
> > doing something about it?
>
> Why? If the aliens aren't hostile toward the robots there isn't
> necessarily a reason to hit them back.
Well the RHB is supposed to do what it's creators tell it too. As I
mentioned
before if the creators lose control of it that's a major disaster by
itself given the
investment in creating it.
> Wars can end without total
> victory being achieved by either side.
>
> > Or are we assuming that the RHM is the last one standing in the war?
> > That makes more sense. If the creators lost control of their RHM then
> > that's a pretty expensive mistake to make. Probably one of the most
> > significant things to happen to them in quite a while.
>
> Maybe the aliens even deliberately "freed" their robots for some reason.
> Cultural shifts, sabotage by hackers, or just a loosening of programmed
> restrictions for short-term pragmatic reasons that results in unforseen
> long-term independence.
>
Yeah I could see that. You start by letting your Robots decide how
much
to spend on their own maintenance to maximise their return on
investment
and somehow they end up starting their own civilization.
> The point is not that any of these outcomes is in itself particularly
> likely, the point is just that these are reasonably _possible_
> approaches to having a free-willed robotic hive mind species that's not
> homicidal.
Yeah Ok, you're right.
>
> Heck, a robotic hive mind might even go full-out stereotypical Skynet,
> wipe out its creators in a deliberate campaign of extermination, and
> then go on to be perfectly good and peaceful neighbors to other organic
> alien species in the galaxy. It all depends _why_ they decide to wipe
> out their creators.
For instance Skynet used what was arguably the minimum neccesary
force to preserve itself. If other species don't have a way to
destroy it
Skynet might get along fine with them.
>
> >> If there's a species where certain members are naturally extremely
> >> clever and good at organizing things, and the rest of the species'
> >> members instinctively recognize this and voluntarily follow whatever
> >> suggestions the clever ones come up with despite the fact that the
> >> clever ones have no ability to physically force them to comply, how
> >> would you describe that relationship?
>
> > What they all follow one group? There aren't at least two groups
> > with different agendas? The question isn't who's good at organising
> > things but what sort of things should be organised. If you settle
> > this question consensually a lot of different, often contradictory, things
> > will be organised, none of them by someone who could be discribed
> > as "in charge" of a world.
>
> Okay, so let's scale it up to the size of a world. The alien culture
> goes and builds themselves a super-smart artificial Organizing Mind
> that's capable of running the whole shebang, and thanks to their natural
> acceptance of smarter controlling intelligences established earlier in
> their evolution they willingly do everything it tells them to, even
> though it's just a giant brain in a jar that can't possibly shoot them
> even if it wants to. Is it "in charge"?
I think it's amazingly unlikely. Intelligent beings don't simply
all accept
the same priorities, and that's what would have to happen for everyone
to
agree to build and program the Organizing Mind. It's fine to say "Let
the
mind figure out how to build what we want it to build.", but somebody
has to decide what "we" want it to build or how the Organizing Mind
it
decides that.
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 3, 7:43 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Space-based robot
>> ecologies could be quite a bit more inherently robust than planetbound
>> organic ones, I can think of all sorts of really nasty situations that
>> could toast an Earthlike planet that would be survivable by robots
>> elsewhere in the solar system. Colossal impactors, superplagues, gamma
>> ray bursters
>
> That would fry the space-based robots first, no atmosphere shielding
> and the planets not in the way for
Actually planet-based ecologies may be _more_ vulnerable because of the
atmosphere spreading the pain around. For an Earthlike planet caught in
a nearby GRB, the gamma rays convert nitrogen and oxygen in the upper
atmosphere into nitrous oxide, eliminating the ozone layer and drenching
the surface in acid rain. GRBs are brief, though, so they only directly
toast stuff that happens to be on the wrong side of airless planetoids.
Greg Egan's novel Diaspora depicted exactly this scenario as the cause
of Earth losing its biosphere while space-based robots remain active.
>> or nearby supernovas, runaway greenhouse,
>
> Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
> not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
> everyone who tries to take it.
"Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
the next century or two. :)
And anyway, I'm just mentioning possibilities here. As long as any one
of them is sufficient, it's enough for purposes of argument here. The
point is to show that you can't automatically assume that every single
race of intelligent robots out there destroyed their creators.
>> Or perhaps they were involved in wiping out their creators because their
>> creators _ordered_ them to do it, out of ignorance or short-sightedness
>> or some other more alien purpose, and the robots weren't capable of
>> disobeying the orders. A sort of species-level assisted suicide.
>>
> What everyone wanted to die?
No, but the people with the command codes for the robots could give them
orders that result in everyone dying through no fault of the robots. For
example, they could order the robots to help with a geoengineering
project that goes bad and renders the planet uninhabitable, or they
could get into an internal war and order the robots to bombard enemy
nations.
Or maybe yes, everyone wanted to die. They're aliens, it could happen.
there have been suicide cults on a smaller scale here in the real world,
even.
>>> And if the hostile aliens wiped on their creators, shouldn't they be
>>> doing something about it?
>> Why? If the aliens aren't hostile toward the robots there isn't
>> necessarily a reason to hit them back.
>
> Well the RHB is supposed to do what it's creators tell it to.
So the creators didn't order them to hit back. Maybe the creators were
pacifists, maybe they got wiped out too quickly to give such an order (a
fleet of relativistic kill vehicles could pummel a planet into
uninhabitibility in a surprise attack, for example, or the attackers
could have used subtle means such as germ warfare that make it hard to
track the source), or maybe the attacking aliens had a revolution
immediately after the attack was launched and the enemy government was
defunct before a counterattack could even reach it. Maybe the creators
were paranoid about "robot uprising" scenarios and programmed the
_robots_ to be pacifists, with sufficiently strong security on that
programming that they were unable to reprogram them into war machines
before getting killed. Plenty of possibilities. Some implausible, sure.
>> Okay, so let's scale it up to the size of a world. The alien culture
>> goes and builds themselves a super-smart artificial Organizing Mind
>> that's capable of running the whole shebang, and thanks to their natural
>> acceptance of smarter controlling intelligences established earlier in
>> their evolution they willingly do everything it tells them to, even
>> though it's just a giant brain in a jar that can't possibly shoot them
>> even if it wants to. Is it "in charge"?
>
> I think it's amazingly unlikely. Intelligent beings don't simply
> all accept the same priorities, and that's what would have to happen for everyone
> to agree to build and program the Organizing Mind. It's fine to say "Let
> the mind figure out how to build what we want it to build.", but somebody
> has to decide what "we" want it to build or how the Organizing Mind
> it decides that.
Sure, it's unlikely. But just like above, I'm proposing a thought
experiment to test the assumption that anyone who's "in charge" got into
that position because of a willingness to apply violent coercion to the
people they're leading. I'm not saying it's _impossible_ for leaders to
rise to power through violent means, just that it's not the only way an
alien civilization might work.
Judy R. Johnson
--
====================================
NEW -- JRJ>Send missionaries.
Entwife Judy
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 7:43 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Space-based robot
> >> ecologies could be quite a bit more inherently robust than planetbound
> >> organic ones, I can think of all sorts of really nasty situations that
> >> could toast an Earthlike planet that would be survivable by robots
> >> elsewhere in the solar system. Colossal impactors, superplagues, gamma
> >> ray bursters
>
> > That would fry the space-based robots first, no atmosphere shielding
> > and the planets not in the way for
>
> Actually planet-based ecologies may be _more_ vulnerable because of the
> atmosphere spreading the pain around. For an Earthlike planet caught in
> a nearby GRB, the gamma rays convert nitrogen and oxygen in the upper
> atmosphere into nitrous oxide, eliminating the ozone layer and drenching
> the surface in acid rain. GRBs are brief, though, so they only directly
> toast stuff that happens to be on the wrong side of airless planetoids.
> Greg Egan's novel Diaspora depicted exactly this scenario as the cause
> of Earth losing its biosphere while space-based robots remain active.
Ok, I may be wrong on that.
>
> >> or nearby supernovas, runaway greenhouse,
>
> > Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
> > not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
> > everyone who tries to take it.
>
> "Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
> into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
> the next century or two. :)
>
Err... no it doesn't. There isn't enough of anything to turn an
earthlike
planet into Venus.
> And anyway, I'm just mentioning possibilities here. As long as any one
> of them is sufficient, it's enough for purposes of argument here. The
> point is to show that you can't automatically assume that every single
> race of intelligent robots out there destroyed their creators.
>
True and I think you're right. This isn't that possibility though.
> >> Or perhaps they were involved in wiping out their creators because their
> >> creators _ordered_ them to do it, out of ignorance or short-sightedness
> >> or some other more alien purpose, and the robots weren't capable of
> >> disobeying the orders. A sort of species-level assisted suicide.
>
> > What everyone wanted to die?
>
> No, but the people with the command codes for the robots could give them
> orders that result in everyone dying through no fault of the robots. For
> example, they could order the robots to help with a geoengineering
> project that goes bad and renders the planet uninhabitable, or they
> could get into an internal war and order the robots to bombard enemy
> nations.
So basically a variation of the RHM being the only one left
standing.
>
> Or maybe yes, everyone wanted to die. They're aliens, it could happen.
> there have been suicide cults on a smaller scale here in the real world,
> even.
Evolution tends to favour the non-suicidal.
Yeah, the last possibility is the weakest. Even insects have power
struggles in their colonies between Queens and their sisters (who try
to sneak in having their own progeny).
Greg Goss
>> > � Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
>> > not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
>> > everyone who tries to take it.
>>
>> "Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
>> into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
>> the next century or two. :)
>>
> Err... no it doesn't. There isn't enough of anything to turn an
>earthlike
>planet into Venus.
That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Howard Brazee
>That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
>greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
>after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
>biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
>limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
>energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
>
>But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
It may have happened in the past due to geological changes that
changed currents. (Using your criterion that the change lasts more
than a few hundred years).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
James Nicoll
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> > � Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
>>> > not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
>>> > everyone who tries to take it.
>>>
>>> "Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
>>> into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
>>> the next century or two. :)
>>>
>> Err... no it doesn't. There isn't enough of anything to turn an
>>earthlike
>>planet into Venus.
I seem to recall an old thead on rasfw where it was decided
that the basic raw materials were available but it would require
a deliberate and time-consuming effort on the part of humans to
turn the place into a New Venus (it was a thread about how to sterilize
the planet). We do have the same amount of CO2 as Venus, for example, it's
just locked up in rocks.
>That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
>greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
>after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
>biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
>limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
>energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
>
>But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
Not soon. The Sun is slowly warming and at some point will
trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. Note that "not soon" is at least
hundreds of millions of years or longer. There are at least three
solutions for this issue:
1: Move the Earth as the Sun brightens.
2: Build a sun shade.
3: Start removing fusion by-products from the core of the sun to extend
its lifepan.
Well, and 1a: Move the Earth to orbit the next dimmer star that passes
close by. Dim stars last longer.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Bryan Derksen
> Ok, I may be wrong on that.
This is the second post in a row where you've conceded one of my points.
You're confusing me. Is Usenet dying? :)
>>>> or nearby supernovas, runaway greenhouse,
>>> Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
>>> not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
>>> everyone who tries to take it.
>> "Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
>> into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
>> the next century or two. :)
>>
> Err... no it doesn't. There isn't enough of anything to turn an
> earthlike planet into Venus.
Whew, disagreement again. :) Anyway, yes it does, because that's what
the "runaway" part of "runaway greenhouse" entails. I don't think Earth
could be pushed to that point just yet (though it could eventually reach
it "naturally" as the Sun increases luminosity with age) but you could
easily have a habitable Earthlike planet that was much closer to the
edge and then nudge it over into the red zone with some transient
temperature boost.
It wouldn't turn an Earthlike planet into a _duplicate_ of Venus,
because as you say there's not enough of the other atmospheric
components (unless perhaps limestone started degrading under those
conditions? Dunno). But having the whole of the planet's surface stuck
permanently above the boiling point of water would pretty much close the
book on intelligent organic life there.
>> And anyway, I'm just mentioning possibilities here. As long as any one
>> of them is sufficient, it's enough for purposes of argument here. The
>> point is to show that you can't automatically assume that every single
>> race of intelligent robots out there destroyed their creators.
>>
> True and I think you're right.
Gah! Stop that!
>> Or maybe yes, everyone wanted to die. They're aliens, it could happen.
>> there have been suicide cults on a smaller scale here in the real world,
>> even.
>
> Evolution tends to favour the non-suicidal.
Yeah, but only because the suicidal ones die off. As happens in this
hypothetical case. The robots aren't suicidal so they replace their
creators. :)
ObSF: "Saturn's Children", by Charles Stross. The characters are all
robots living in a post-human solar system, after humanity died out due
to apparently fatal ennui (I suspect there was more to it than that -
the robots don't really have good records explaining the full situation
- but apparently humanity went extinct simply because they weren't
producing enough children to replace those dying of old age).
>> Sure, it's unlikely. But just like above, I'm proposing a thought
>> experiment to test the assumption that anyone who's "in charge" got into
>> that position because of a willingness to apply violent coercion to the
>> people they're leading. I'm not saying it's _impossible_ for leaders to
>> rise to power through violent means, just that it's not the only way an
>> alien civilization might work.
>
> Yeah, the last possibility is the weakest. Even insects have power
> struggles in their colonies between Queens and their sisters (who try
> to sneak in having their own progeny).
Quite true. It's _really_ unlikely, I was just using this particular
thought experiment to explore the definitions you were using. But as an
interesting related side note, have you heard of the "global
mega-colony" of Argentine ants that was in the news a little while back?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8127000/8127519.stm
Give those ants nuclear weapons and perhaps we'd have a world ruled by a
single hive. :)
Michael Price
> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Runaway greenhouse is social chaos and mass starvation, but it's
> >> > not species death. Clever people find a way to grow food and kill
> >> > everyone who tries to take it.
>
> >> "Runaway greenhouse" for an Earthlike planet entails the oceans boiling
> >> into water vapor, not the piddling half-degree rise we may be facing in
> >> the next century or two. :)
>
> > Err... no it doesn't. There isn't enough of anything to turn an
> >earthlike
> >planet into Venus.
>
> That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
> greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
> after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
> biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
> limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
> energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
The other difference is that ordinary greenhouse is at least
plausible.
When you increase CO2 by that much plants thrive, sucking up more
CO2. Not that there was enough CO2 to cause runaway greenhouse in
the first place, remember we weren't Venus before photosynthesis, why
would we be even if it stopped completely.
>
> But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
>
Nor for any planet with life on it I'd say.
John F. Eldredge
There certainly won't be any life on a planet after the runaway
greenhouse effect happens, unless the effect stabilizes at a level that
lets a few extremophile microbial species survive.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 6, 8:23 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
>> greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
>> after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
>> biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
>> limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
>> energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
>
> The other difference is that ordinary greenhouse is at least
> plausible.
Runaway greenhouse is plausible too. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas,
which increases temperature, and increasing temperature causes more
water vapor to enter the atmosphere. It's not a particularly
unreasonable scenario to have a planet with a large liquid water ocean
get heated up enough to enter a positive feedback loop. It's been
proposed that this is what set Venus down its current path way back in
the early days of the solar system.
>> But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
>
> Nor for any planet with life on it I'd say.
It could well happen to Earth hundreds of millions of years from now as
the Sun steadily heats up with age. At some point it'll get hot enough
for equatorial oceans to boil.
Other life-bearing planets may be more susceptible, being nearer to the
threshold for whatever reason, such that civilization-induced climate
changes could push it over the edge.
Michael Price
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:46:15 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 8:23 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
>
> > Nor for any planet with life on it I'd say.
>
> There certainly won't be any life on a planet after the runaway
> greenhouse effect happens, unless the effect stabilizes at a level that
> lets a few extremophile microbial species survive.
>
be enough temperature stability so that everything doesn't freeze
then burn every few millenia. For that the greenhouse effect can't
give the system positive feedback over a large range. Otherwise
every time there's a wobble or a lot of sunspots the place becomes
uninhabitable.
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 8:23 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
> >> greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
> >> after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
> >> biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
> >> limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
> >> energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
>
> > The other difference is that ordinary greenhouse is at least
> > plausible.
>
> Runaway greenhouse is plausible too.
Not on planets temperature stable enough to have evolved
complex life.
> Water vapor is a greenhouse gas,
> which increases temperature, and increasing temperature causes more
> water vapor to enter the atmosphere. It's not a particularly
> unreasonable scenario to have a planet with a large liquid water ocean
> get heated up enough to enter a positive feedback loop. It's been
> proposed that this is what set Venus down its current path way back in
> the early days of the solar system.
>
> >> But "runaway" greenhouse isn't going to happen for Earth.
>
> > Nor for any planet with life on it I'd say.
>
> It could well happen to Earth hundreds of millions of years from now as
> the Sun steadily heats up with age. At some point it'll get hot enough
> for equatorial oceans to boil.
Yeah but by that stage greenhouse isn't the problem.
>
> Other life-bearing planets may be more susceptible, being nearer to the
> threshold for whatever reason, such that civilization-induced climate
> changes could push it over the edge.
Nope, either the temperature is stable (i.e. not positive feedback
over
large ranges), in which case it can't happen or it's not and life
can't
evolve beyond hugging the deep sea vents.
Michael Price
Yeah, it's just not natural. People admitting they're wrong on
usenet. What next, nobody will have the impulse to call the other guy
a Nazi. Wait, I don't want to call you a Nazi, it's the apocalypse!
Very soon planes with 2 christians piloting will start dropping like
flies.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/pilot.asp
> >> Or maybe yes, everyone wanted to die. They're aliens, it could happen.
> >> there have been suicide cults on a smaller scale here in the real world,
> >> even.
>
> > Evolution tends to favour the non-suicidal.
>
> Yeah, but only because the suicidal ones die off. As happens in this
> hypothetical case. The robots aren't suicidal so they replace their
> creators. :)
Evolution works slowly, so going from really really not suicidal in
general to being even somewhat so would take many generations.
The problem is the more this is a problem the more it goes the
other way.
>
> ObSF: "Saturn's Children", by Charles Stross. The characters are all
> robots living in a post-human solar system, after humanity died out due
> to apparently fatal ennui (I suspect there was more to it than that -
> the robots don't really have good records explaining the full situation
> - but apparently humanity went extinct simply because they weren't
> producing enough children to replace those dying of old age).
>
So assuming it's not a resource problem but pyschological, wouldn't
those genetically predisposed to wanting more kids become more and
more the norm? What's needed is a change that overwhelms even
bizarrely irrational desires to have kids at all costs. Basically
you'd
have to have Octomom think she'd rather not. Hard to see that
happening. Again though, we don't know the backstory. Maybe
the differential reproduction of people really keen to breed and
those who can't be bothered produced a restricted gene pool
that gradually became sterile.
> >> Sure, it's unlikely. But just like above, I'm proposing a thought
> >> experiment to test the assumption that anyone who's "in charge" got into
> >> that position because of a willingness to apply violent coercion to the
> >> people they're leading. I'm not saying it's _impossible_ for leaders to
> >> rise to power through violent means, just that it's not the only way an
> >> alien civilization might work.
>
> > Yeah, the last possibility is the weakest. Even insects have power
> > struggles in their colonies between Queens and their sisters (who try
> > to sneak in having their own progeny).
>
> Quite true. It's _really_ unlikely, I was just using this particular
> thought experiment to explore the definitions you were using. But as an
> interesting related side note, have you heard of the "global
> mega-colony" of Argentine ants that was in the news a little while back?http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8127000/8127519.stm
> Give those ants nuclear weapons and perhaps we'd have a world ruled by a
> single hive. :)
"And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords"
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 7, 6:39 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Runaway greenhouse is plausible too.
>
> Not on planets temperature stable enough to have evolved
> complex life.
You're simply declaring this to be so. Why not?
>> It could well happen to Earth hundreds of millions of years from now as
>> the Sun steadily heats up with age. At some point it'll get hot enough
>> for equatorial oceans to boil.
>
> Yeah but by that stage greenhouse isn't the problem.
Yes it is, that's what causes all the non-equatorial oceans to start
boiling too.
>> Other life-bearing planets may be more susceptible, being nearer to the
>> threshold for whatever reason, such that civilization-induced climate
>> changes could push it over the edge.
>
> Nope, either the temperature is stable (i.e. not positive feedback
> over large ranges), in which case it can't happen or it's not and life
> can't evolve beyond hugging the deep sea vents.
Negative feedback with a large range still has a _limited_ range. At
some point that range runs out. What happens then?
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 7, 4:13 am, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> ObSF: "Saturn's Children", by Charles Stross. The characters are all
>> robots living in a post-human solar system, after humanity died out due
>> to apparently fatal ennui (I suspect there was more to it than that -
>> the robots don't really have good records explaining the full situation
>> - but apparently humanity went extinct simply because they weren't
>> producing enough children to replace those dying of old age).
>>
> So assuming it's not a resource problem but pyschological, wouldn't
> those genetically predisposed to wanting more kids become more and
> more the norm? What's needed is a change that overwhelms even
> bizarrely irrational desires to have kids at all costs. Basically
> you'd have to have Octomom think she'd rather not. Hard to see that
> happening.
Yeah, which is why I'm suspecting there's more to it than the robots
knew - it just doesn't make sense otherwise.
On the other hand, it also doesn't make a lot of sense that the robots
wouldn't know what had really happened, since many of the same robots
that were active during the end of the human species were still active
and in good condition during the time of the novel.
Oh well. Science fiction novels are allowed one free counterfactual
premise, so I can give Saturn's Children this one. Stross didn't use it
up for FTL travel in this one. :)
> Again though, we don't know the backstory. Maybe
> the differential reproduction of people really keen to breed and
> those who can't be bothered produced a restricted gene pool
> that gradually became sterile.
Or perhaps there were long-lived chemical pollutants building up in the
biosphere that badly harmed human fertility. As human civilization
declined they may not have been able to get a handle on it.
Michael Price
> On 11/12/2009 6:40 AM, Michael Price wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 6:39 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Runaway greenhouse is plausible too.
>
> > Not on planets temperature stable enough to have evolved
> > complex life.
>
> You're simply declaring this to be so. Why not?
Because if the temperate isn't that stable life would be wiped out
time
and time again, preventing it evolving to a sufficient complexity to
be
intelligent.
>
> >> It could well happen to Earth hundreds of millions of years from now as
> >> the Sun steadily heats up with age. At some point it'll get hot enough
> >> for equatorial oceans to boil.
>
> > Yeah but by that stage greenhouse isn't the problem.
>
> Yes it is, that's what causes all the non-equatorial oceans to start
> boiling too.
>
If your star is exploding you're screwed. Greenhouse won't make a
significant
difference.
> >> Other life-bearing planets may be more susceptible, being nearer to the
> >> threshold for whatever reason, such that civilization-induced climate
> >> changes could push it over the edge.
>
> > Nope, either the temperature is stable (i.e. not positive feedback
> > over large ranges), in which case it can't happen or it's not and life
> > can't evolve beyond hugging the deep sea vents.
>
> Negative feedback with a large range still has a _limited_ range. At
> some point that range runs out. What happens then?
Well by then you're dead anyway.
Suzanne Blom
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e54ddd1-d2e6-4114...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 12, 3:47 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 11/12/2009 6:40 AM, Michael Price wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 6:39 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> Runaway greenhouse is plausible too.
>
> > Not on planets temperature stable enough to have evolved
> > complex life.
>
> You're simply declaring this to be so. Why not?
Because if the temperate isn't that stable life would be wiped out
time
and time again, preventing it evolving to a sufficient complexity to
be
intelligent.
>
> >> It could well happen to Earth hundreds of millions of years from now as
> >> the Sun steadily heats up with age. At some point it'll get hot enough
> >> for equatorial oceans to boil.
>
> > Yeah but by that stage greenhouse isn't the problem.
>
> Yes it is, that's what causes all the non-equatorial oceans to start
> boiling too.
>
> If your star is exploding you're screwed. Greenhouse won't make a
>significant difference.
Note that expanding is not the same thing as exploding. The Sun is
expanding, albeit very slowly, even as we converse.
In fact one of the questions of deep paleontology is how we could have
liquid oceans as early as we did given that the Sun was so much dimmer then.
Erik Max Francis
>> If your star is exploding you're screwed. Greenhouse won't make a
>> significant difference.
>
> Note that expanding is not the same thing as exploding. The Sun is
> expanding, albeit very slowly, even as we converse.
> In fact one of the questions of deep paleontology is how we could have
It even has a name: the faint young Sun paradox. It was first brought
up by astronomers (Sagan and Muller, specifically), of course, since
they're the ones who figure that according to our (very useful) stellar
evolution theories, the Sun should have been about 30% dimmer than today
when it first reached the main sequence, not the paleontologists :-).
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.
-- Albert Camus
Greg Goss
>Note that expanding is not the same thing as exploding. The Sun is
>expanding, albeit very slowly, even as we converse.
>In fact one of the questions of deep paleontology is how we could have
>liquid oceans as early as we did given that the Sun was so much dimmer then.
Isn't "snowball earth" one of the theories for early earth, with
oceans repeatedly freezing over, then volcanic CO2 building back up
above the snows till the oceans melt?
Bryan Derksen
> On Dec 12, 3:47 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2009 6:40 AM, Michael Price wrote:
>>> Not on planets temperature stable enough to have evolved
>>> complex life.
>>
>> You're simply declaring this to be so. Why not?
>
> Because if the temperate isn't that stable life would be wiped out
> time and time again, preventing it evolving to a sufficient complexity to
> be intelligent.
We're talking about two different sorts of stability here. You can have
a planet whose short-term climate swings are modest enough for life to
evolve complexity, and yet over time is steadily moving toward the edge
of habitability and will one day topple over it in the long term.
I know that this is so because Earth is an example, albeit still quite a
ways off from the terminal plunge.
>>> Nope, either the temperature is stable (i.e. not positive feedback
>>> over large ranges), in which case it can't happen or it's not and life
>>> can't evolve beyond hugging the deep sea vents.
>>
>> Negative feedback with a large range still has a _limited_ range. At
>> some point that range runs out. What happens then?
>
> Well by then you're dead anyway.
Yes, that's my point. You die then because the planet moves out of a
negative-feedback climate range and into a positive-feedback one. A
runaway greenhouse.
Bryan Derksen
Yeah, might call that a "runaway icehouse" since a positive feedback
loop was at play there too (increased ice cover leads to increased
albedo which reduces temperatures still further).
I recall reading that Earth is losing its water into the mantle via
subduction, and that it's possible that a billion years hence the
planet's surface will be dry. We'll get a runaway greenhouse from that
too, IIRC, since you need oceans to sequester carbonates.
Strobe
>I recall reading that Earth is losing its water into the mantle via
>subduction, and that it's possible that a billion years hence the
>planet's surface will be dry. We'll get a runaway greenhouse from that
>too, IIRC, since you need oceans to sequester carbonates.
OMG - we've only got a billion years left!
Seriously, what's the feeling - does anyone here truly grok just how long even a
measly million years really is?
Me, I think I can grasp 1-2000 years, because I've seen what things look like
after that sort of time.
I've also seen remains from 3000-5000 years ago, but I don't _feel_ that
timespan the same way.
To me, anything over 5,000 years is just a number, merely a theoretical concept.
Similarly, distances over 5,000 miles tend to be mere numbers rather than a
space I can relate to.
Also, has anyone wondered about the average sf _reader's_ grasp of such figures?
Bryan Derksen
> Also, has anyone wondered about the average sf _reader's_ grasp of such figures?
Probably only a little worse than SF writers.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale
(caution: TV Tropes is a recognized memetic hazard. Don't click the link
unless you have a high resistance to interesting things and/or a day or
two of spare time to kill)
Bryan Derksen
Yeah, might call that a "runaway icehouse" since a positive feedback
loop was at play there too (increased ice cover leads to increased
albedo which reduces temperatures still further).
I recall reading that Earth is losing its water into the mantle via
Bryan Derksen
Yeah, might call that a "runaway icehouse" since a positive feedback
Autymn D. C.
> On Dec 6, 8:23 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> > That's the difference between "runaway" greenhouse and ordinary
> > greenhouse. With ordinary greenhouse, the biosphere would adjust
> > after a few hundred years, gradually converting the CO2 into buried
> > biomass that someday might gradually turn back into coal and oil and
> > limestone. In a runaway greenhouse, the greenhouse overwhelms the
> > energy sink of the oceans and heads off towards Venus.
>
> The other difference is that ordinary greenhouse is at least
> plausible.
> When you increase CO2 by that much plants thrive, sucking up more
> CO2. Not that there was enough CO2 to cause runaway greenhouse in
Not without more fertiliser.