4 ms·

I don't even think travel time is the biggest problem; that could imaginably be solved with (far) future engineering. The bigger problem is that our bodies, ev

by _bxg1 7y ago

I don't even think travel time is the biggest problem; that could imaginably be solved with (far) future engineering. The bigger problem is that our bodies, even our psychologies, are so finely-tuned for this exact environment. Even if we found another planet that could technically sustain us, our bodily rythms, our diets, everything, would be miserably unsuited to it for thousands of years. Not even getting into the possibility of foreign micro-organisms. People have a hard enough time dealing with the light cycles being off at extreme latitudes, or with not seeing enough greenspace in daily life. You know what doesn't have greenspace? The entire rest of the universe, probably.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
So you're willing to allow for far future engineering to solve the time problem, but not the problem of bioengineering the human body?
- esotericn 7y ago
  I think the issue here is that you rapidly get into some sort of absurd state in which you have no idea what to optimize for, or even if you do, you end up "evolving" another species entirely. Imagine that we could do all of that on Earth. Imagine an individual that has no need for natural light, no need to green space. Go further - perhaps they don't need to socialize, they don't need a diet any more varied than a few pills, they don't need entertainment of any kind. Combine those mental changes with physical ones (for example, who needs limbs that can support weight if you're in zero-g). You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. It's possible in the sense of "this is not against the laws of physics", it's just hard to really fathom what it means, it becomes a Theseus' ship of "is that thing really still human", I think.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. So what? They're still our progeny. Natural evolution will change us just as it always has even if we do nothing. That some future descendant of a human is classed as a different species entirely is inevitable. All the engineering does is accelerate and direct the process.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      It also sterilizes the process. Diversity and complexity and mess are not only beautiful, but robust. Artificial evolution would reduce us to mere mechanisms.
      - natch 7y ago
        Artificial evolution, whatever that is, can still have randomness. Tom Ray’s program Tierra is a simple and real example. There is no rule saying randomness cannot be introduced. And it can be situated in chaotic environments that further vary what happens.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      Right, as I said, there's nothing theoretically stopping this. I just don't think that creating versions of humans that don't share any of the desires of humans is particularly interesting. You might consider that the other approach would be to have a general AI that runs in software. In some sense they are two paths towards the same goal.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  I'm personally against transhumanism; I think our human nature is the only thing that gives life any meaning. But I understand there may be people here who don't agree with that perspective. But even just on a practical level, I think it's still a taller order than figuring out high-speed space travel and some sort of cryogenic system.
  - natch 7y ago
    The only thing! That is a remarkable assertion. I think our surroundings, which determine where our actions land and what impact they have, is another thing that gives life meaning. If we were just living in a void our human nature would not mean much. And with those two elements: 1) an environment and 2) a conscious being (whether it’s human, dolphin, dog, machine, or otherwise) it would seem that meaningful things can happen. Can’t see why the conscious being needs to be human.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      > I think our surroundings, which determine where our actions land and what impact they have, is another thing that gives life meaning. If we were just living in a void our human nature would not mean much. Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. Were we perfectly rational systems divorced from nature (and our own natural history), our surroundings would become mere resources. > And with those two elements: 1) an environment and 2) a conscious being (whether it’s human, dolphin, dog, machine, or otherwise) it would seem that meaningful things can happen. Can’t see why the conscious being needs to be human. What I meant was that our humanness is what gives our lives meaning, not that humanness is what gives any life meaning. Given our track record, if we designed our own new form it wouldn't be some higher natural form but a dispassionately "optimal" one. That fact would kill us, in any meaningful sense.
      - natch 7y ago
        >Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. It all gets very circular. The important "meaning" stuff could survive in the next successor apex life form, let's call it "whatever." Which btw will have an environment, which you may consider an aspect of its whateverness, if not its humanness. And its whateverness will give its life meaning, etc. etc. So there is nothing all that special about humans, in other words, other than we have achieved a lot (not only technologically, but also intellectually) to date relative to other organisms we know about. >Given our track record, if we designed our own new form it wouldn't be some higher natural form but a dispassionately "optimal" one. This reminds me of the artist Pablo Picasso who said of computers "...they are useless. They can only give you answers." implying that they can't ask questions or come up with new things. Why did he think that? I'm at a loss to come up with any reason other than ignorance. Computers are perfectly capable of surprising everyone with new capabilities each year. We don't have a track record to speak of with artificial life creation, but the danger of creating a boring monolithic life form is not unknown. Usually when we identify problems like this, we find solutions for them. Imagining that we can't is like imagining that computers can only give answers. It's closing yourself off to possibilities emerging from something that is very much open ended and continuing to evolve. It's a kind of religious thinking in that it comes down to faith that humans are, for some slippery reason, uniquely special in ways that nothing else ever can be.

by _bxg1 7y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

So you're willing to allow for far future engineering to solve the time problem, but not the problem of bioengineering the human body?

esotericn 7y ago
I think the issue here is that you rapidly get into some sort of absurd state in which you have no idea what to optimize for, or even if you do, you end up "evolving" another species entirely. Imagine that we could do all of that on Earth. Imagine an individual that has no need for natural light, no need to green space. Go further - perhaps they don't need to socialize, they don't need a diet any more varied than a few pills, they don't need entertainment of any kind. Combine those mental changes with physical ones (for example, who needs limbs that can support weight if you're in zero-g). You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. It's possible in the sense of "this is not against the laws of physics", it's just hard to really fathom what it means, it becomes a Theseus' ship of "is that thing really still human", I think.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > You easily get to the state in which what you're making is no longer a human being but some sort of 'creation'. So what? They're still our progeny. Natural evolution will change us just as it always has even if we do nothing. That some future descendant of a human is classed as a different species entirely is inevitable. All the engineering does is accelerate and direct the process.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    It also sterilizes the process. Diversity and complexity and mess are not only beautiful, but robust. Artificial evolution would reduce us to mere mechanisms.
    - natch 7y ago
      Artificial evolution, whatever that is, can still have randomness. Tom Ray’s program Tierra is a simple and real example. There is no rule saying randomness cannot be introduced. And it can be situated in chaotic environments that further vary what happens.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Right, as I said, there's nothing theoretically stopping this. I just don't think that creating versions of humans that don't share any of the desires of humans is particularly interesting. You might consider that the other approach would be to have a general AI that runs in software. In some sense they are two paths towards the same goal.
_bxg1 7y ago
I'm personally against transhumanism; I think our human nature is the only thing that gives life any meaning. But I understand there may be people here who don't agree with that perspective. But even just on a practical level, I think it's still a taller order than figuring out high-speed space travel and some sort of cryogenic system.
- natch 7y ago
  The only thing! That is a remarkable assertion. I think our surroundings, which determine where our actions land and what impact they have, is another thing that gives life meaning. If we were just living in a void our human nature would not mean much. And with those two elements: 1) an environment and 2) a conscious being (whether it’s human, dolphin, dog, machine, or otherwise) it would seem that meaningful things can happen. Can’t see why the conscious being needs to be human.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    > I think our surroundings, which determine where our actions land and what impact they have, is another thing that gives life meaning. If we were just living in a void our human nature would not mean much. Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. Were we perfectly rational systems divorced from nature (and our own natural history), our surroundings would become mere resources. > And with those two elements: 1) an environment and 2) a conscious being (whether it’s human, dolphin, dog, machine, or otherwise) it would seem that meaningful things can happen. Can’t see why the conscious being needs to be human. What I meant was that our humanness is what gives our lives meaning, not that humanness is what gives any life meaning. Given our track record, if we designed our own new form it wouldn't be some higher natural form but a dispassionately "optimal" one. That fact would kill us, in any meaningful sense.
    - natch 7y ago
      >Sure, but I consider that relationship with our environment to be an aspect of our humanness. It all gets very circular. The important "meaning" stuff could survive in the next successor apex life form, let's call it "whatever." Which btw will have an environment, which you may consider an aspect of its whateverness, if not its humanness. And its whateverness will give its life meaning, etc. etc. So there is nothing all that special about humans, in other words, other than we have achieved a lot (not only technologically, but also intellectually) to date relative to other organisms we know about. >Given our track record, if we designed our own new form it wouldn't be some higher natural form but a dispassionately "optimal" one. This reminds me of the artist Pablo Picasso who said of computers "...they are useless. They can only give you answers." implying that they can't ask questions or come up with new things. Why did he think that? I'm at a loss to come up with any reason other than ignorance. Computers are perfectly capable of surprising everyone with new capabilities each year. We don't have a track record to speak of with artificial life creation, but the danger of creating a boring monolithic life form is not unknown. Usually when we identify problems like this, we find solutions for them. Imagining that we can't is like imagining that computers can only give answers. It's closing yourself off to possibilities emerging from something that is very much open ended and continuing to evolve. It's a kind of religious thinking in that it comes down to faith that humans are, for some slippery reason, uniquely special in ways that nothing else ever can be.