4 ms·

> We’re doomed That depends on how you define "we". If you define "we" as "homo sapiens", or even "biological creatures evolved (and therefore specialized) fo

by lisper 4y ago

> We’re doomed That depends on how you define "we". If you define "we" as "homo sapiens", or even "biological creatures evolved (and therefore specialized) for survival on earth" then you are almost certainly correct. And such a "we" is almost certainly doomed even if "we" do spread out because a "we" defined as organisms specialized for survival on earth cannot survive anywhere except some place that is very similar to earth. This is true by definition. This does not necessarily mean that "we" have to find other earths. "We" can engineer earth-like environments. But that is a lot of work. You can make the problem a lot easier simply by redefining what you mean by "we". If by "we" you mean "systems that think in a manner akin to what we (humans) do" that dramatically expands the scope of possible solutions. Being biological is (almost certainly) not a pre-requisite to thinking. By redefining "we" in this way we open the door to solving the problem by sending robots or even just raw information out into the universe. That is still a significant challenge of course, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to keep bags of water and meat alive (to say nothing of mentally competent) in interstellar space.

towaway15463 4y ago
I’m always amazed when people seem to miss the obvious answer. Robots won’t get us there. Digitizing consciousness won’t either. We already have perfectly good nanotechnology capable of adapting to any environment. It’s staring us in the face, literally when you look in a mirror. DNA and proteins are how you do nanotechnology right. Add to that a guiding consciousness so we don’t have to wait millions of years for the slow search algorithm of evolution to find the answer and there’s nothing we can’t do. Our biggest task is reverse engineering the machine and learning to control it but given the tools we have now I believe we can master it within this century. Interstellar distances at sub light speed are no obstacle if you have complete control over your biology/lifespan/metabolism. Just bring a big enough pile of enriched uranium, water and biomass and you’re good to go for hundreds of years. Yes we do still need mechanical and electrical machines where they are more efficient but biology can provide for the lion’s share of our needs once it is under our control.

by lisper 4y ago

towaway15463 4y ago

I’m always amazed when people seem to miss the obvious answer. Robots won’t get us there. Digitizing consciousness won’t either. We already have perfectly good nanotechnology capable of adapting to any environment. It’s staring us in the face, literally when you look in a mirror. DNA and proteins are how you do nanotechnology right. Add to that a guiding consciousness so we don’t have to wait millions of years for the slow search algorithm of evolution to find the answer and there’s nothing we can’t do. Our biggest task is reverse engineering the machine and learning to control it but given the tools we have now I believe we can master it within this century. Interstellar distances at sub light speed are no obstacle if you have complete control over your biology/lifespan/metabolism. Just bring a big enough pile of enriched uranium, water and biomass and you’re good to go for hundreds of years. Yes we do still need mechanical and electrical machines where they are more efficient but biology can provide for the lion’s share of our needs once it is under our control.