3 ms·

If you can build robots smart enough to keep babies alive and raise them not to end up stone-age level feral children, you could probably save some effort, skip

If you can build robots smart enough to keep babies alive and raise them not to end up stone-age level feral children, you could probably save some effort, skip the human part entirely, and just send the robots to do colonist stuff.

yeahsure 15y ago
That would not preserve our species, should planet Earth become inhabitable.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Right, that's the whole point. It's not an economic venture, it's a backup plan.
  - chii 15y ago
    There is no economic value in funding this backup plan by the private sector (which is defined by profits). Its not like they will "own" the new colony - unless, of course, if they actually do. I.e., if the corps are allowed to use those colonists raised as slaves for the corp's gains, then there would be economic value and hence, the private sector will attempt to do this. Though i doubt that is ever going to pass, so the only alternative for this "backup" plan is gov't funded expeditions.
- rsaarelm 15y ago
  If you have robots that can raise babies into grown-up humans, the robots need to be pretty much the same as humans themselves at that point.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Not at all. You need sufficiently advanced AI, but the purpose is to preserve humanity. It's a one-way trip. You aren't doing anything on another planet that will affect Earth, just spreading the seed.
    - rsaarelm 15y ago
      The sufficiently advanced AI is going to have to be able to do pretty much the same things humans can do for the thing to work, so it'd be a game-changer in itself, not something that gets waved off as an aside. Re. the preservation thing, the question is exactly what counts as humanity. If you have limited resources and can only pick one, would you choose a planet colonized by biological humans who have lost all of the present civilization and language, and are reduced to stone-age conditions (assuming for the moment that the alien environment wouldn't kill them instantly), or synthetic beings with the sufficiently advanced AI with all human cultural knowledge and skills they'd need to survive on an alien planet and a cognitive and psychological makeup very close to actual humans they'd need to be able to raise babies into sane adults, and the ability to build more of themselves? Basically, is humanity more about a culture or about being made of the correct chemicals?
      - iwwr 15y ago
        Desperate times may require desperate measures. Robotic parents won't have to be close to human parents, just good enough to teach language and reading. The result may be psychologically unstable or mentally deficient children, but that may be corrected in a few generations.
        redthrowaway 15y ago
        >but that may be corrected in a few generations. Or not, as the case may be. That's why you send out many such probes. You would have to assume that most attempts would fail. You are, after all, attempting to transplant human life with no human oversight. Either way, it's merely prolonging the inevitable. The Sun has about 5 billion years of fuel left, which is coincidentally about the time the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda, ruining everyone's day. The Sun would be far too hot to support life on Earth long before that, but let's assume we've moved to a more gentrified suburb. Even were humanity to somehow escape the Milky Way in the next 5 billion years, we'll still just be building sandcastle walls in an attempt to hold back the tide. I'm reminded here of Asimov's The Last Question, an excellent short story: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- adrianN 15y ago
  Preserving the AI that we created is close enough in my books. Genes are an archaic way to transfer information.
astrofinch 15y ago
Not if the "colonist stuff" is "fork the human race".

yeahsure 15y ago

That would not preserve our species, should planet Earth become inhabitable.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Right, that's the whole point. It's not an economic venture, it's a backup plan.
- chii 15y ago
  There is no economic value in funding this backup plan by the private sector (which is defined by profits). Its not like they will "own" the new colony - unless, of course, if they actually do. I.e., if the corps are allowed to use those colonists raised as slaves for the corp's gains, then there would be economic value and hence, the private sector will attempt to do this. Though i doubt that is ever going to pass, so the only alternative for this "backup" plan is gov't funded expeditions.
rsaarelm 15y ago
If you have robots that can raise babies into grown-up humans, the robots need to be pretty much the same as humans themselves at that point.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Not at all. You need sufficiently advanced AI, but the purpose is to preserve humanity. It's a one-way trip. You aren't doing anything on another planet that will affect Earth, just spreading the seed.
  - rsaarelm 15y ago
    The sufficiently advanced AI is going to have to be able to do pretty much the same things humans can do for the thing to work, so it'd be a game-changer in itself, not something that gets waved off as an aside. Re. the preservation thing, the question is exactly what counts as humanity. If you have limited resources and can only pick one, would you choose a planet colonized by biological humans who have lost all of the present civilization and language, and are reduced to stone-age conditions (assuming for the moment that the alien environment wouldn't kill them instantly), or synthetic beings with the sufficiently advanced AI with all human cultural knowledge and skills they'd need to survive on an alien planet and a cognitive and psychological makeup very close to actual humans they'd need to be able to raise babies into sane adults, and the ability to build more of themselves? Basically, is humanity more about a culture or about being made of the correct chemicals?
    - iwwr 15y ago
      Desperate times may require desperate measures. Robotic parents won't have to be close to human parents, just good enough to teach language and reading. The result may be psychologically unstable or mentally deficient children, but that may be corrected in a few generations.
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        >but that may be corrected in a few generations. Or not, as the case may be. That's why you send out many such probes. You would have to assume that most attempts would fail. You are, after all, attempting to transplant human life with no human oversight. Either way, it's merely prolonging the inevitable. The Sun has about 5 billion years of fuel left, which is coincidentally about the time the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda, ruining everyone's day. The Sun would be far too hot to support life on Earth long before that, but let's assume we've moved to a more gentrified suburb. Even were humanity to somehow escape the Milky Way in the next 5 billion years, we'll still just be building sandcastle walls in an attempt to hold back the tide. I'm reminded here of Asimov's The Last Question, an excellent short story: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
adrianN 15y ago
Preserving the AI that we created is close enough in my books. Genes are an archaic way to transfer information.

astrofinch 15y ago

Not if the "colonist stuff" is "fork the human race".