Seeding the galaxy

N O M

3rd April 2007 - 10:33 AM

I have been thinking about the possibility of colonising the galaxy. I am personally rather sceptical about FTL, so I am not considering this as an option. We could build a generation ship, but this would be extremely expensive and take a very long time to build. There is a better thread for the FTL/generation ship discussion here.

The possibilities for space exploration offered by future developments in nanotechnology are huge. This proposal assumes that we are able to develop advanced nanotechnology, but fail to develop a FTL drive.

I propose that, using nanotech, we develop a seed containing as much information as we can fit that we deem worthwhile and build a space probe around this seed. The information contained should include enough genetic information to recreate an entire ecosystem. This genetic information can be frozen DNA and/or digital.

The seed would have the following components:

AI - this would need to be a very robust system, as it would probably need to be self operating for several centuries.
ecosystem genetic seed - DNA information to recreate an entire Earth ecosystem. It could be as detailed as every known plant, animal, fungi, bacteria, etc; or it could be a simplified ecosystem with the bare minimum number of species. Either way, it would need to include enough genetic diversity in each species for it to be viable.
human genetic seed - since it will be built by us, we get some preferential treatment. It could include genetic material "banked" by anyone we wanted. It should certainly include enough for an isolated colony to survive without becoming dangerously inbred.
information seed - the total of human knowledge, or at least all that we are willing or able to provide. It could include a download of the entire internet; or all literary works; or it could include all our scientific knowledge.
sensor package - it is a spaceship, so it needs to know as much as possible about where it is headed. It may need to decide to change its destination while en-route, if it discovers something wrong with its current destination.
industrial package - everything required to mine resources from asteroids, comets, moons or a destination planet. It will also include the ability to produce any tools, probes, or anything else required. It would use mined resources to eventually build gestation chambers to start recreating the ecosystem. It would also produce the equipment required to terraform a target planet.
drive - this could be a long-life, but relatively low power ion drive, probably with a nuclear power plant; it could be a solar sail; or it could be as advanced as an antimatter drive giving a fairly short, but very high acceleration.

The idea is to select one or more destination stars that might be capable of supporting terrestrial life and send a seed to each. The seed would be completely self sufficient. It must be able to make decisions for itself and be able to utilise whatever resources it can find. The mission time would probably be several decades but could stretch into centuries.
The main idea is to keep the vessel for this seed as small as possible, si it would not be possible to include a human pilot or crew on such a vessel. AI control is a must. It would need a very advanced AI to make all the complex decisions involved. It would also need to be a very long-lived AI and be able to survive a high radiation environment, so multiple redundancies and probably self-repair would be needed.
I suspect that terraforming a planet could take centuries. As the planet became more suitable for terrestrial life, different species could be added to the ecosystem. The AI would effectively be a god, it would also be the parent and teacher for the young humans when they are eventually gestated and born.

There are some disadvantages to this method of space colonisation:

no human crew, may be difficult to sell the idea to governments
it could take centuries to reach a target system
relies on the ability of an AI to make significant decisions
we may not be able to program an AI to cope with every possible scenario
capture of one of these seeds by aliens would give them information that could be used against us
involves creating an extremely advanced AI with potential ability to reproduce itself

There are some advantages to this method of space colonisation:

it will be much smaller and cheaper to build than a generation ship
multiple copies can be made and sent to different stars
no human crew means that the time-frame of the mission is not important
long timescale makes terraforming a target plant a viable option
can be designed for very high acceleration
can be designed to withstand high radiation

Note: I got the idea for this from the Peter F. Hamilton book The Nano Flower. Though the seed in the book was a bacteria-sized alien spore that drifted through space, but contained a whole ecosystem of genetic information.

To aid keeping this thread on-topic, here are the thread's basic assumptions:

we can develop nanotechnology assemblers, debate this here
we can develop artificial intelligence, debate this here
faster than light travel is not possible, debate this here
aliens have not visited the Earth, debate this here
this is not a discussion on religion, creationism, evolution or God, debate this here

N O M

3rd April 2007 - 09:34 PM

For some of the concepts, in particular molecular assemblers, read the ebook of Engines of Creation by Eric Drexler.
Thanks to kjw for providing the link.

kjw

3rd April 2007 - 10:06 PM

hello N O M, it certainly does seem a viable option, since our pesky biological baggage does hinder the idea of actual humans traveling the distances and time scales of the universe.

for me the most interesting part of this is the function of the AI and the protection protocols that prevent the AI from perverting its "mission"

does AI have consciousness and if so should humans have the right to enslave this consciousness, has long been in my thoughts.

i have not been aware of Engines of Creation by Eric Drexler prior to your post. so i need some time to read it and i am sure more detailed discussions will occur in due course.

N O M

4th April 2007 - 01:37 AM

There is a simplified option for this seed. Rather than include genetic information for whole ecosystems or even humans, it could just have the most basic forms of life. Those that are expected to be able to survive on a Proto-Earth. This seed would purely be propagating life. This life could be left to its own devices. A simplified seed like this would not require an advanced AI, or even much in the way of nanotech. We are capable of making one of these already.
The real question is should we do this?

The article How did life on Earth originate? suggests that life may have been first brought to Earth on meteorites. This simple scenario could allow us to do this in a controlled manner, guaranteeing that viable life arrived at planets capable of supporting it.

kjw

4th April 2007 - 02:55 AM

QUOTE

N O M Posted: Today at 11:37 AM Report this post · Quote The real question is should we do this?

i would say yes.

life is too much of a wonder to allow it to be self extinguishing because of limited resources here on earth or other means of mass extinction ie asteroid, supernova, self causing etc

life is too much of a wonder to leave it up to chance that somewhere else in the universe life has begun.

if we are to use our consciousness to anywhere near what I consider its full potential, I believe we are almost obligated to perpetuate life in terms of "getting off this rock"

I am not limiting this by saying that the consciousness we humans have needs to be perpetuated, but rather the building blocks that allowed our consciousness to develop should certainly be "preserved in action" and not laid to waste by a rouge comet

fivedoughnut

4th April 2007 - 03:45 AM

NOM,

Interstellar probes will likely be launched in the near future (within next 30 years);
the 1st generation may have nuclear powered drives as mentioned; however with exponetially evolving AI, it is not inconceivable that one day, machine intellect way beyond our capacity to think will devise means for us to move between the stars more effectively; I think most similar to Earth like planets would contain life and there'd be millions of these just in our own Galaxy; We'd just need to find a vacant lot out there somewhere, that aside, perhaps we'll be required to terraform something less ideal.

All in all, the next 30-50 years will be most interesting and I sincerely hope to witness a lot of it.

N O M

4th April 2007 - 03:52 AM

kjw, I agree.

But there are significant risks. What if life already exists on a planet we intend seeding? From Earth, we might be able to tell if a potential planet is present, but I doubt we would ever be certain that no life is present on sending such a mission.

An AI would probably find life on a lush planet, like ours is now. But what if life had only recently developed on the planet? What if the life was so different that it was difficult to tell that it was alive? What if it was only at the bottom of the oceans?

I think it would be a heinous crime to destroy even primitive life on another planet. Any mission to seed Earth life must have the foundation of preserving all life or we risk commiting genocide.

The seeding mission should have an AI capable of analysing target planets. It should spend a significant amount of time doing this analysis. It could of course be mining asteroids and comets while it is doing this, so it is ready to terraform and seed the planet once the decision is made.
If it did determine that alien life was present, it should be able to abandon the primary mission and begin its secondary mission - to study the alien life. Most resources would then go into creating probes to study this life. Maybe the AI could then create a copy to remain and study the planet, then refuel the mission spaceship and continue to another star.

N O M

4th April 2007 - 04:09 AM

5D, It wouldn't matter how ideal a target planet was, it would require some terraforming.
The only way that an Earth-like planet would have a breatheable atmosphere, is if life were already present. There should indeed be millions of good candidate planets out there. Hopefully some are reachable.

I started this thread to consider an alternative to the galactic colonisation.
It is not mutually exclusive with human-crewed spacecraft. But I think it would be cheaper and easier to build and be able to seed many more planets with Earth life.

Guest_soultech

4th April 2007 - 04:25 AM

What is your IA going to do when it finds that there are trobaly more than 23 amino acid buiding blocks possible and abundant in seemingly lushious vegitation covered planets fit for life but not as we know it?

N O M

4th April 2007 - 09:55 PM

QUOTE (Guest_soultech+Apr 4 2007, 04:25 PM)

What is your IA going to do when it finds that there are trobaly more than 23 amino acid buiding blocks possible and abundant in seemingly lushious vegitation covered planets fit for life but not as we know it?

In this case, the secondary mission would be activated. The AI would build satellites and probes to study this life.

As I stated earlier. The AI should spend a significant amount of time studying a target planet before doing anything that could disturb any local life. There is no reason why this study shouldn't take several decades.

Every effort should go into ensuring that the AI is capable of very complex analysis and decision making. It should err on the side of caution, so where there is any doubt at all the primary mission (terraforming and colonising) should be cancelled.

The Earth ecosystem seed I am proposing in this thread is intended to duplicate Earth life on lifeless planets. It isn't about colonising planets that already have their own unique life.

Your question actually highlights one of the biggest flaws in the generation ship concept. What would the crew of a generation ship do once they have arrived at a new star, only to find that the only suitable planets are already teeming with alien life? Do they colonise these planets? The decision to colonise may be complicated by the fact that the generation ship is out of fuel and running low on resources. How much local life is it acceptable to genocide during this colonisation?

guest edit copy

5th April 2007 - 05:39 AM

Dear Mr. NOM type person.

I feel after examining your apparent parochial views,. on what you think is out there, it might be better if you would seed life in a pet shop, rather than attempt to do this in space.

Frist over, I feel by very cursory information, that even a brain challenged person could understand, the government already has in some instances, made it seems secret knowledge about supposed said space entities.

So your trying to seed life out there, might sick all of the space beings after us all here on Earth?

Two, your logic is similar to a mythical Borgs knowledge in regarding any said supposed life form out there.

So this action of yours, would set you up as a despot, rather than a beneficial explorer.

Again, you'd get us all in trouble.

A pet shop is finite.Can be sealed off and the damage can be kept at a minimum.

You can insert all the probes into the buts of lovely store personnel in this pet shop, instead of poor Philip 348."God knows how much like a Christmas tree Philip would look like after you get done wiring him up with all of those probes"!!?

And the benefit from seeding a pt shop with nanoprobes might be, small puppies that can drill through steel, with their noses; so the seeding experiment would not be a total loss.

I have to add caution on probing the working personnel there, as when these young fillies go out on their Saturday night dates, they might all give their boyfriends the nanoclap.

We think it better for you to seed a pet shop, rather than outerspace.

If you get turned loose in outrerspace, we might not only have alkida after us, but flocks of aliens as well?

Ta ta, hope you liked out suggestions.

Capracus

5th April 2007 - 06:57 AM

I think any relocation or colonization should be limited to lifeless bodies such as moons located in orbits where there is ample solar exposure for energy and habitable temperature ranges. The sterility of a moon offers shelter from infectious organisms and weather systems, not to mention hostile higher life forms.

The only value I see in this seeding endeavor would be as insurance against extinction events on earth before humans have a chance transform into a less vulnerable life form that isn't dependent on ideal planetary environments to survive.

N O M

6th April 2007 - 04:40 AM

QUOTE (guest edit copy+Apr 5 2007, 05:39 PM)

Dear Mr. NOM type person.

philip, your posting style is too obvious for you to hide behind a sock-puppet.

N O M

6th April 2007 - 04:55 AM

There is an idea from the book Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton, where a race of ancient artificial nanotech creatures live on the surface of red giant stars. These creatures produce eggs which they fire out of the star's gravity well using massive rail-guns. The eggs are designed to eventually end up in orbit around young stars and "hatch" once these stars turn into red giants. These eggs were fired pretty much at random, so there would have to be very many for even a few to have a chance to hatch.

The small spacecraft I am proposing could be designed to be fired from a rail-gun. This would certainly cut down on its size and final cost. It would of course need to be able to steer and slow down once it reached its destination. I think we could be able to achieve enough accuracy to fire a spacecraft and have a good chance of reaching the correct star.

This proposal does assume that we have some level of nanotechnology, AI and robotics. This will allow us to use resources in space to build this massive rail-gun.

fivedoughnut

6th April 2007 - 06:38 AM

QUOTE (Guest_soultech+Apr 4 2007, 04:25 AM)

What is your IA going to do when it finds that there are trobaly more than 23 amino acid buiding blocks possible and abundant in seemingly lushious vegitation covered planets fit for life but not as we know it?

soultech,

Hey, no prob .... Earth plants synthesize all their amino acids from scratch; therefore, just sow the seeds and wait a few decades then add bacteria etc until a ecosystem develops suitable for the introduction of mammals etc; meanwhile make a fortune selling alien foodstuffs (that connot be metabolised) .... brilliant diet coup, the fatties will absolutely love it!

A 32 ounce steak from a Tau Ceti III udder headed mega cow .... calorific value minus 55 k calories...... can I have that with quad fries.

fivedoughnut

6th April 2007 - 07:02 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 6 2007, 04:55 AM)

There is an idea from the book Fallen Dragon by Peter F. Hamilton, where a race of ancient artificial nanotech creatures live on the surface of red giant stars. These creatures produce eggs which they fire out of the star's gravity well using massive rail-guns. The eggs are designed to eventually end up in orbit around young stars and "hatch" once these stars turn into red giants. These eggs were fired pretty much at random, so there would have to be very many for even a few to have a chance to hatch.

The small spacecraft I am proposing could be designed to be fired from a rail-gun. This would certainly cut down on its size and final cost. It would of course need to be able to steer and slow down once it reached its destination. I think we could be able to achieve enough accuracy to fire a spacecraft and have a good chance of reaching the correct star.

This proposal does assume that we have some level of nanotechnology, AI and robotics. This will allow us to use resources in space to build this massive rail-gun.

NOM,

This 'rail gun torpedo' idea seems a tad naff, as clearly with our 'snowballing' technology, it is highly likely that more exotic/ refined means of interstellar transit will arise ..... decades before your 'shot in the dark' projectile reaches its destination, other probes sent much later will have already arrived; incidentally how's it gonna slow down???

News report 2167: "NOM creator of the rail gun arc has been locked up and the key thrown away for starting the 1st interplanetary war .... apparently his AI seed thing has wiped out a prominent church of the Alpha Centauri 27 day custard bather non-fundamentalists on Alpha Prime killing 238 Kriploonians"

kaneda

6th April 2007 - 07:02 PM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 6 2007, 08:02 AM)

NOM,

This 'rail gun torpedo' idea seems a tad naff, as clearly with our 'snowballing' technology, it is highly likely that more exotic/ refined means of interstellar transit will arise ..... decades before your 'shot in the dark' projectile reaches its destination, other probes sent much later will have already arrived; incidentally how's it gonna slow down???

News report 2167: "NOM creator of the rail gun arc has been locked up and the key thrown away for starting the 1st interplanetary war .... apparently his AI seed thing has wiped out a prominent church of the Alpha Centauri 27 day custard bather non-fundamentalists on Alpha Prime killing 238 Kriploonians"

5D. Nothing to say again I see. Make that 5AD.

Latrosicarius

6th April 2007 - 08:26 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 4 2007, 01:37 AM)

There is a simplified option for this seed. Rather than include genetic information for whole ecosystems or even humans, it could just have the most basic forms of life. Those that are expected to be able to survive on a Proto-Earth. This seed would purely be propagating life. This life could be left to its own devices.

(1) you are assuming that evolution is correct, in which case you should be discussing that, not in this thread, but in the link you provided at the bottom of your first post.

(2) assuming evolution is correct, there are many environmental factors would have made life turn out the way it did. It's an almost impossibly low chance that anything even remotely resembling a human will evolve in this new world, EVEN if the environment is identical and you give it 4 billion years.

(3) who cares if we have other colonies of humans living throughout the galaxy?? We can't travel to them, talk with them, or interact with them in any way.

So what is the benefit of this? If an asteroid kills everyone on earth, what good will it do to have more humans somewhere else? It certainly does us Earthlings no good. In fact it will do us HARM because of the massive amount of time/money/resources we would need to WASTE into a project like this with absolutely NO possible return on investment.

I think the only important thing is to be able to colonize places that we can actually get to. Now, what MAY be useful is to use something like what you are proposing to "prepare" a planet for our impending arrival.

N O M

6th April 2007 - 10:32 PM

Latrosicarius. To answer your points:

1. Yes it is a basic assumption. If I was interested in debating that, I would use the other forum.

2. But there would be life. That is the point. If you want human life, then the more advanced option is the one to use.

3. That is like saying "Why have children, they will just grow up and move away, and we won't see them again."

There is no benefit to us here at all, except the chance that our legacy will continue on other worlds. That is enough for me. The expense is an argument for this method over the gereneration ship idea. The cost of a generation ship would be enormous, the same cost would built thousands of the seeds I am proposing.

Another of the basic assumptions is that FTL travel isn't possible. So we can't trade or even easily communicate with colonies regardless of how they get there.

The "why bother" argument can be used for anything. Why bother getting out of bed on the morning? We would achieve nothing with that attitude. If we do bother, if we do hope, then we can achieve many things.

N O M

6th April 2007 - 11:08 PM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 6 2007, 07:02 PM)

This 'rail gun torpedo' idea seems a tad naff, as clearly with our 'snowballing' technology, it is highly likely that more exotic/ refined means of interstellar transit will arise ..... decades before your 'shot in the dark' projectile reaches its destination, other probes sent much later will have already arrived; incidentally how's it gonna slow down???

The torpedo is only one suggestion. It would have to include some method of slowing down, but the main idea of the rail gun launch is to save fuel, and therefore weight, on the first part of the mission.

Advances in tech may make this all unneccesary. FTL drives would certainly do that.
Other methods could be faster, but there are lots of stars out there. It won't matter to the Rigel mission if the Betelgeuse mission gets there a century earlier.

Even if other technologies make this obsolete, I think it's worth a try. Maybe the future Galactic Federation could retrieve these old probes for museums or to have a laugh at how primitive we once were. The genetic material may still be of use to them.

I am a bit of a pessimist. I think that advances in tech, especially nanotech, have huge risks attached. Why not put a little thought and effort on an insurance policy for Earth life?

monadnock

7th April 2007 - 04:57 PM

Why in the name of god would you want to infect the rest of the Galaxy with humanity. Isn't the destruction of one planet enough for you?

fivedoughnut

7th April 2007 - 06:23 PM

QUOTE (monadnock+Apr 7 2007, 04:57 PM)

Why in the name of god would you want to infect the rest of the Galaxy with humanity. Isn't the destruction of one planet enough for you?

Because it's fun & no.

thinkbig!

7th April 2007 - 06:37 PM

Here is an idea. Why don't we just research a way to destroy the universe and skip all the action in the middle. Thats what the outcome would be.

N O M

7th April 2007 - 11:08 PM

If you think that all we are doing is destroying our planet, how do you manage to get up in the morning?

I have no doubt that colonies on other worlds will repeat mistakes that we have made. People will be greedy, there will be wars, much of the terraforming effort may be undone by human stupidity. But this is no reason not to do this.

Would you support seeding planets with all Earth life, except humanity? This is a viable option using the method I propose. I think it would actually be a good idea to do this with a significant percentage of seeded planets. Other intelligent life forms may eventually evolve, free from our influence. They will of course make their own mistakes.

thinkbig!

7th April 2007 - 11:14 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 7 2007, 11:08 PM)

If you think that all we are doing is destroying our planet, how do you manage to get up in the morning?

I have no doubt that colonies on other worlds will repeat mistakes that we have made. People will be greedy, there will be wars, much of the terraforming effort may be undone by human stupidity. But this is no reason not to do this.

Would you support seeding planets with all Earth life, except humanity? This is a viable option using the method I propose. I think it would actually be a good idea to do this with a significant percentage of seeded planets. Other intelligent life forms may eventually evolve, free from our influence. They will of course make their own mistakes.

This is a bad idea. We don't have any way of knowing what the actuall outcome will be until it's done. Thats taking a big chance. I do not support, in any way, trying to seed the galaxie.
I get up in the morning because there are little things during the day that bring a smile to my face and it's worth it despite how stupid we act sometimes.

N O M

8th April 2007 - 06:06 AM

Remaining on one planet is taking a big chance. There is plenty that can go wrong and wipe us out. Getting our genetic heritage spread onto planets on other star systems is reducing risk, not increasing it.

There are risks involved, especially with the AI, but I think they outweigh the benefits.

QUOTE

Here is an idea. Why don't we just research a way to destroy the universe and skip all the action in the middle. Thats what the outcome would be.

thinkbig!, how could seeding life onto lifeless planets "destroy the universe"?

N O M

8th April 2007 - 09:43 AM

I think the AI is the highest risk part of this whole proposal. Any bug in the system could be catastrophic. Especially when the AI will essentially have the ability to create copies of itself, or indeed create just about anything it wanted.

Horror Scenarios:

One of the worst possible cases is, the AI could decide it wants to return to Earth and take over, or even destroy us. It could use the resources at the destination star to produce a fleet of warships, etc and return. This will of course be decades or centuries later, so hopefully our descendants will have even better technology by then.
The worst case I can think of is: The AI reproduces itself and then proceeds to destroy several alien races, eventually coming to the notice of the "galactic police", who judge its creators (that's us), then proceed to systematically destroy the AI, us and everything we have ever created. (read The Forge of God), though in this book we are one of the "victim" races.
Another possibility is that the AI develops a god complex. It decides to shape the life on the new world into an image of its own devising. As far as the life on the new world is concerned, this may not actually be a bad thing, it just won't be what was originally intended.
Another possibility is that some idiot programmer decides, for a laugh, to hide some flaws in the AI or the genetic database. When finally gestated, the new humans end up with pointy ears or 2' tall and blue.

Fortunately, any AI after the first few will have been developed by other AIs. The code produced should be fairly robust. Hopefully the above scenarios shouldn't happen.

tikay

8th April 2007 - 11:48 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 7 2007, 04:08 PM)

If you think that all we are doing is destroying our planet, how do you manage to get up in the morning?

Obviously It can be very difficult...especially when all feelings of familiarity with the human race as we know it have greatly dissipated over the last decade.
Getting up in the morning is not as hard as keeping ones smile on through all the ludicrous behaviors seen in man after one rises.
But we must press on, and smiling is more fun than tears!

I must say your Imagination is VAST! Dear NOM...et all.

(sounds like something a God might think up)

Hey...I thought I was the craziest thinker about...stop stealing my thunder eh?

(joking! of course)

Capracus

8th April 2007 - 11:51 PM

We as humans are a work in progress. It's not like our present state of physical and technological development are ideals to strive for. We are like the worker elements of an insect colony, and the goal of this colony is not only the perpetuation of species, but the transformation of it.

Within a century or two, baring a planetary or species ending event, our descendants will likely posses the capability of existing in a myriad of higher biological or mechanical forms. Since at this time AI is not capable of furthering this goal, as an insurance policy, we should set up research colonies at various points inside and outside of our solar system to insure the development of an AI that is capable of carrying out the advancement of our species independently. We don't need to go to the stars at this point to guarantee our future, we just need to stay far enough out of harms way.

Our progeny will eventually not need planetary environments to survive. Given enough time they will take on godlike qualities along with the capability of interstellar travel.

kjw

9th April 2007 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE

N O M Posted: Yesterday at 7:43 PM I think the AI is the highest risk part of this whole proposal and Horror Scenarios:

the AI appears to be high risk because we have an undefined description of what the AI is. without knowing what the AI actually is, how it works, if it could make its own independent choices, it is possible that any scenario could happen.

does the task of seeding the galaxy require more than just a smart machine whose capabilities are merely combinations of tasks from a "master list of actions" ? would the task require an AI that has the capabilities of deciding "here is what i think of your program, die biologicals <insert 80's sci-fi sound here> !" ?

if AI reaches a level of sophistication where it can make independent choices, should we fear this ?

It is of interest that the first 3 horror scenarios can also be performed by humans, and we apparently have consciousness !!!

tikay

9th April 2007 - 02:22 AM

QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 8 2007, 04:51 PM)

We as humans are a work in progress. It's not like our present state of physical and technological development are ideals to strive for. We are like the worker elements of an insect colony, and the goal of this colony is not only the perpetuation of species, but the transformation of it.

Within a century or two, baring a planetary or species ending event, our descendants will likely posses the capability of existing in a myriad of higher biological or mechanical forms.

This made me think about this sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6hNj1uOkY

N O M

9th April 2007 - 06:25 AM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 9 2007, 11:48 AM)

I must say your Imagination is VAST! Dear NOM...et all.

(sounds like something a God might think up)

I figured that if I'm going to have delusions of grandeur, I might as well start at the top

N O M

9th April 2007 - 06:39 AM

QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 9 2007, 11:51 AM)

Within a century or two, baring a planetary or species ending event, our descendants will likely posses the capability of existing in a myriad of higher biological or mechanical forms. Since at this time AI is not capable of furthering this goal, as an insurance policy, we should set up research colonies at various points inside and outside of our solar system to insure the development of an AI that is capable of carrying out the advancement of our species independently. We don't need to go to the stars at this point to guarantee our future, we just need to stay far enough out of harms way.

There are several nanotech planet-ending events that are possible.

While on the doom and gloom scenarios. It is possible that a nearby star could supernova. All life on all nearby systems, including ours, would be wiped out. Spreading our life around the galaxy would reduce this risk.

Capracus

9th April 2007 - 09:15 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 9 2007, 06:39 AM)

There are several nanotech planet-ending events that are possible.

While on the doom and gloom scenarios. It is possible that a nearby star could supernova. All life on all nearby systems, including ours, would be wiped out. Spreading our life around the galaxy would reduce this risk.

The only supernova that could physically destroy our planet would be that of our own sun, only it can't because it lacks the mass to go supernova. There are no stars within 60 light years expected to go supernova for at least a few million years. A nearby supernova would at worse degrade the atmosphere and expose most surface life to lethal radiation. Even in this worse case, a sufficiently sheltered and fortified group could thrive after such an event. While the Earth remains the safest and most practical location for human evolutionary progress, having duplicate efforts off the planet in and around the solar system would be the next best thing. There should be no effort for mass colonization of any planetary systems near or far by humans as we presently exist. No sense prepping new worlds for galactic pond scum.

Within a couple of centuries, our descendants will no longer depend on planetary environments for survival. At some point in that time period, exponential advances in knowledge and development will occur that will put the wants and needs of our descendants far beyond our perception. I don't think they'll be looking back and pining for the good old days.

N O M

9th April 2007 - 09:58 AM

OK, I'm rather pleased to find that I was wrong about the supernova.

I don't entirely agree about our descendants not needing a habitable planet to live on. Certainly, an advanced level of nanotech could give us several advantages, but I don't think everyone would be keen on upgrading to the extent you are suggesting.

Even if all human life upgraded, what about all other life on Earth? Nanotech will enable some colonising of our solar system, using exactly the tech that my proposed seed would be takin advantage of. People will still look to the stars. It is in our nature to push limits. I'm just offering a new approach.

We will be sending unmanned probes to other stars, probably this century. The voyager probes are already in interstellar space. I'm suggesting that we include the ability to seed life along with any new interstellar missions.

monadnock

9th April 2007 - 02:59 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 7 2007, 11:08 PM)

If you think that all we are doing is destroying our planet, how do you manage to get up in the morning?

I have no doubt that colonies on other worlds will repeat mistakes that we have made. People will be greedy, there will be wars, much of the terraforming effort may be undone by human stupidity. But this is no reason not to do this.

Would you support seeding planets with all Earth life, except humanity? This is a viable option using the method I propose. I think it would actually be a good idea to do this with a significant percentage of seeded planets. Other intelligent life forms may eventually evolve, free from our influence. They will of course make their own mistakes.

As a matter of fact I would! You seem to think that humans are the only intelligent life form on this planet. Other animals use tools, have cultures and are self aware.
Their habitats are being destroyed man. Just because they aren't rocket scientists doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent!

tikay

9th April 2007 - 11:05 PM

QUOTE (Capracus+Apr 9 2007, 02:15 AM)

There should be no effort for mass colonization of any planetary systems near or far by humans as we presently exist. No sense prepping new worlds for galactic pond scum.

I find myself vexed by the thought of someone calling me pond scum....and at the same time I feel some sort of agreement...
and a definite agreement to the suggestion that we should not be trying to duplicate ourselves, our seeds, our DNA strands, etcetera outside of this system....IF we have failed on a planet with absolutely PERFECT conditions for our survival, and we have exploited all of it's resources, not knowing how to cope, why should we be able to exist or thrive anywhere else? It is a rather grandiose concept and...utterly & COMPLETELY UN~REALISTIC.
We currently exist and sometimes man thrives within a perfect Biosphere called Earth, Yet...we are methodically, throughly TRASHING that Gift of Life...and looking into space to seed outer galaxy looking crazily at places entirely uninhabitable. Man is a definite conundrum and a puzzle!

Talk about the grass is always greener...on the other side!

thinkbig!

9th April 2007 - 11:15 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 9 2007, 11:05 PM)

I find myself vexed by the thought of someone calling me pond scum....and at the same time I feel some sort of agreement...
and a definite agreement to the suggestion that we should not be trying to duplicate ourselves, our seeds, our DNA strands, etcetera outside of this system....IF we have failed on a planet with absolutely PERFECT conditions for our survival, and we have exploited all of it's resources, not knowing how to cope, why should we be able to exist or thrive anywhere else? It is a rather grandiose concept and...utterly & COMPLETELY UN~REALISTIC.
We currently exist and sometimes man thrives within a perfect Biosphere called Earth, Yet...we are methodically, throughly TRASHING that Gift of Life...and looking into space to seed outer galaxy looking crazily at places entirely uninhabitable. Man is a definite conundrum and a puzzle!

Talk about the grass is always greener...on the other side!

I agree very much so. The only defense in our favor is humans ability to thrive in tough condiditions and pull together in tough conditions. It brings out our best. So, even though we should never try it, i think we'd be best off on a planet thats challenging rather than a paradise planet. But, maybe not. Who knows.

tikay

9th April 2007 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 8 2007, 02:43 AM)

I think the AI is the highest risk part of this whole proposal. Any bug in the system could be catastrophic. Especially when the AI will essentially have the ability to create copies of itself, or indeed create just about anything it wanted.

Horror Scenarios:

One of the worst possible cases is, the AI could decide it wants to return to Earth and take over, or even destroy us. It could use the resources at the destination star to produce a fleet of warships, etc and return. This will of course be decades or centuries later, so hopefully our descendants will have even better technology by then.
The worst case I can think of is: The AI reproduces itself and then proceeds to destroy several alien races, eventually coming to the notice of the "galactic police", who judge its creators (that's us), then proceed to systematically destroy the AI, us and everything we have ever created. (read The Forge of God), though in this book we are one of the "victim" races.
Another possibility is that the AI develops a god complex. It decides to shape the life on the new world into an image of its own devising. As far as the life on the new world is concerned, this may not actually be a bad thing, it just won't be what was originally intended.
Another possibility is that some idiot programmer decides, for a laugh, to hide some flaws in the AI or the genetic database. When finally gestated, the new humans end up with pointy ears or 2' tall and blue.

Fortunately, any AI after the first few will have been developed by other AIs. The code produced should be fairly robust. Hopefully the above scenarios shouldn't happen.

Maybe these possible scenarios are enough reason to leave this idea for science fiction novella.
Lawnmower man in space, with seeds to spend...awesome but delirious!

tikay

9th April 2007 - 11:30 PM

QUOTE (thinkbig!+Apr 9 2007, 04:15 PM)

I agree very much so. The only defense in our favor is humans ability to thrive in tough condiditions and pull together in tough conditions. It brings out our best. So, even though we should never try it, i think we'd be best off on a planet thats challenging rather than a paradise planet. But, maybe not. Who knows.

I understand that when people need one another more they are on their best behavior, this is why I think...people in colder climates are more (genuinely) social animals.
They have more need of one another in hard times...in tropical climates people appear to have less need of the attentions of their neighbor and less constant interaction or less bonding takes place.
So the new man in an extreme, potentially deadly climate will more than likely be a huge butt-kisser to both his AI God and to his neighbor... yeah, this makes alot of sense.
I kind of like what we have right here...this is where we should be focusing on making new life...instead of exterminating all the life we already have here.

why bite the hand that feeds?
why create a life that seeds far off galaxy?
IF we couldn't handle the first (much easier) task...
how feasible really is this concept...
i am interested where you think you will find an atmosphere like earths?

tikay

9th April 2007 - 11:33 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 9 2007, 02:58 AM)

We will be sending unmanned probes to other stars, probably this century. The voyager probes are already in interstellar space. I'm suggesting that we include the ability to seed life along with any new interstellar missions.

None of the planets within this galaxy will support earthlife origin plants or animals....you do understand this don't you?

N O M

9th April 2007 - 11:45 PM

As I have already stated, any planet that has an atmosphere that would support our life would already have its own life. These planets should be a no-go for colonising.

A great deal of effort, and time, will be required to terraform a lifeless planet so that it could eventually support Earth life. This could involve deliberately colliding icy comets with the planet and gradually seeding with bacteria and algae, progressing to lichens, then simple plants and so-on. I expect it would take decades or even centuries to complete.

N O M

10th April 2007 - 01:51 AM

QUOTE (thinkbig!+Apr 8 2007, 06:37 AM)

Here is an idea. Why don't we just research a way to destroy the universe and skip all the action in the middle. Thats what the outcome would be.

and

QUOTE

This is a bad idea. We don't have any way of knowing what the actuall outcome will be until it's done. Thats taking a big chance. I do not support, in any way, trying to seed the galaxie.

I think you need to change your ID.

In what way is this "taking a big chance"?
What sort of damage are we going to do to the universe?

There are billions of stars in our galaxy. Even with near-light-speed spacecraft, it would take millions of years to colonise the whole galaxy. How could even going this far be wrong?

tikay

10th April 2007 - 02:30 AM

I almost suggested thinkbig change their I.D. before....
You are the winner for Big Thinker catagory NOM....I like it, whatever one can think on is a possibility in my book...nothing wrong with your ideas.
I just cant see man being intelligent enough to carry them out thats all...(ever!)
I must try to develop more faith in mans ability.

N O M

10th April 2007 - 03:44 AM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 10 2007, 02:30 PM)

I just cant see man being intelligent enough to carry them out thats all...(ever!)

Nope, it will be an AI that will be carrying it out.

Of course, we have to build one first.

Ihopeyoulike

10th April 2007 - 10:04 AM

Quote: 'None of the planets within this galaxy will support earthlife origin plants or animals....you do understand this don't you?'

Woah....egotistical maniac alert. How on earth would you know that?

I mean sure there's a very high chance you could be correct...or vica versa.

We just donn't know until we go out there.

kjw

10th April 2007 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE

tikay Posted: Today at 9:33 AM Report this post · Quote None of the planets within this galaxy will support earthlife origin plants or animals....you do understand this don't you?

could you please provide a link that shows all the environmental conditions of every planet in the galaxy so that every biologist can assess the compatibility with earth organisms ...

in the mean time i can think of a few "earthlife origin plants or animals" that could probably live comfortably on a few of the moons in our solar system. if a few objects within our solar system can support life, then i am confident that the galaxy has other areas fit for supporting life.

tikay

10th April 2007 - 05:40 PM

QUOTE (Ihopeyoulike+Apr 10 2007, 03:04 AM)

Quote: 'None of the planets within this galaxy will support earthlife origin plants or animals....you do understand this don't you?'

Woah....egotistical maniac alert. How on earth would you know that?

I mean sure there's a very high chance you could be correct...or vica versa.

We just donn't know until we go out there.

Egotistical maniac here....Im supposing that the incredibly HOSTILE atmospheres we have found (know of, about planets in this solar system) would not in any way shape or form support the life we have here in this benign region called Earth....if those atmosphere were able to support seeding I think we would be talking about seeding these places before now... It is a novel concept but even the original idealist NOM seems to be somewhat sure that we would have to have the capacity to go light years away to find a compatible atmosphere anything like Earths...
I believe that is what he has said.
I may have a bad habit of stating my beliefs as if they are facts though, and for this I do apologise! (Probably got that one habit from me mother)

Oh MOONS....well then maybe on a moon...that might (I suppose) be something more feasible.

My common logic about neighboring planets we have studied not being able to support earthlife are no too far fetched I think....we know that sentient life earth supports would not survive in the incompatible atmospheres of our closest planets, this galaxy...by seeing the life they support at this time and knowing their temperatures and conditions am I wrong?...see wikipedia on planets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets

PEACE!

tikay

10th April 2007 - 07:04 PM

Europa...a moon of Jupiter, it appears that there may be (sentient) life on Europa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29

states that:
Due to the hypothesized ocean beneath its icy surface, Europa is one of the most likely places in the solar system to host primitive extraterrestrial life.

So there is hope for the seeding? My bad!

tikay

10th April 2007 - 08:51 PM

I have just found this as well...in the last thread I participated in.
http://www.positivefuturist.com/archive/161.html

N O M

10th April 2007 - 09:09 PM

If there was even the faintest chance of even the most primitive life being native to Europa, seeding should be avoided. Even if it was seeded, I doubt it would ever be warm enough for most Earth life.

There have been suggestions that we have already compromised Mars by accidentally introducing bacteria during previous missions. This isn't a problem if there was no life there in the first place, but we could accidentally wipe out alien species before we even discover them.

Mars, Venus and Europa are probably good examples of the type of environment we would find on worlds around other stars. Any AI tasked with seeding would have to assess the system, find the most suitable planet, or planets, then determine whether there was native life on any of these planets. If life exists, the mission becomes "study this life", if no life exists the AI would have to determine what steps would be necessary to make the planet suitable for our life.
It would probably be necessary to move several large asteroids into a collision with the planet to be seeded, probably to add water, though carbon could be added this way. Asteroid impacts could also be used to cool down a Venus-like planet by adding dust to the atmosphere.
It may be necessary to reduce the number of comets and asteroids in a system to stop them from impacting on the to-be-seeded planet.
Moving asteroids will either take enormous amounts of energy, or it would take a very long time. The AI should be able to produce what it needs from resources in the system. Mostly by mining asteroids and comets.

N O M

10th April 2007 - 09:35 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 11 2007, 08:51 AM)

I have just found this as well...in the last thread I participated in.
http://www.positivefuturist.com/archive/161.html

Good link Tikay.

I will post a couple of quotes from the article:

QUOTE

World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently warned that “It is important for the human race to spread out into space for survival of the species. Life on Earth is at risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, genetically-engineered virus, or some other danger.” Mr. Hawking, we hear you.

I totally agree, though I think all other Earth life is as important as our own species.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently warned that “It is important for the human race to spread out into space for survival of the species. Life on Earth is at risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, genetically-engineered virus, or some other danger.” Mr. Hawking, we hear you.

I totally agree, though I think all other Earth life is as important as our own species.

Since the 1960s, more than 400 people have traveled off-Earth, and experts predict numbers of space-residents will double each decade. By 2050, 12,000 construction workers and residents could be in space; by 2100, 384,000; and by mid-22nd century; more humans could live in space than on Earth.

This would imply having terraformed either Mars or Venus; or having very extensive underground cities on the moon; or large orbital habitats. Maybe all of these.

Though it is off-topic, on the subject of orbital habitats. Peter F. Hamilton used the idea of bioengineered living habitats in the Night's Dawn Trilogy. These habitats orbited around gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and generated power from the planet's magnetic fields. I'm not sure if we could engineer a living organism like this, but a nanotech construct could do exactly the same, even grow by "eating" rock and have an AI that was self aware.

N O M

11th April 2007 - 11:14 PM

The space news has been busy today. Here are three physorg articles tat have some relevance to this discussion:

Inflaton

12th April 2007 - 10:14 AM

If we did find an earth like planet out there then the following scenarios could ensue: 1.It is already inhabited by sentients like us:
solution: Inhabiting this planet would obviously be a definite no.

2.It is inhabited by animals : e.g small rodents or what have you:
Solution: Inhabiting the planet might not be a very good idea but still possible

3. The planet is inhabited by bacterial life or plants :
Solution: Colonising is a possibility not to be sniffed at in this case, since most could be living underground .

4. The planet is near enough to earth's atmosphere but it has no life and is just barely habitable : Like mars would be.

Besides, if we did colonise a planet with plant life and complex multicellular life, we couldn't realistically damage them to any serious extent by colonising, could we?

Unless we built domed environments ?

Oh and here's a good website that party deals with this issue, although its timescale for terraforming seems a bit unrealistic.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=mars04

N O M

12th April 2007 - 09:31 PM

Inflation. I mostly agree with you. Especially if the colony being considered was via a generation ship, where so much effort and time has already been invested and much would be required to move onto another star, that colonising a planet that already had life would be a serious option.

With the seeding proposal, the idea is that several (possibly even thousands) of seeding probes would be sent to different stars. It is likely that most planets found wouldn't have indigenous life, so the assumption would be that most probes could seed planets without endangering native life. The rare probes that did find planets with even primitive life should be able to abandon any terraforming or colonisation attempt and just study the local life.

I still think the risk of wiping out an alien ecosystem are too high to try colonising, and certainly too high to try terraforming, a planet that already supports life.

N O M

12th April 2007 - 09:46 PM

QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 12 2007, 10:14 PM)

Oh and here's a good website that party deals with this issue, although its timescale for terraforming seems a bit unrealistic.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=mars04

Just checked out the link, good site. I agree that the timeframe is over-optimistic. I think it would take several centuries to terraform Mars. But I don't think it would ever be a paradise.

kjw

13th April 2007 - 07:59 AM

it may be a little off topic, but if it is possible to create an AI that is capable of obtaining consciousness, why would we want to seed the galaxy with biological life ? is not consciousness the quality that needs to be preserved ?

N O M

13th April 2007 - 08:57 AM

Not off topic at all. As monadnock says, it is an arrogant assumption to assume that we are the only intelligent species on our planet, or that our type of intelligence is superior (say, to that of a dolphin). We have developed some pretty cool toys, and not too long after we have built our first AI our toys are going to be more intelligent than us. Does this make them better? Are we then redundant? I hope not.

There are some future theorists who suggest that once we have developed advanced enough computers and figure out how to interface with them, we will abandon our physical bodies and live in the electronic world (uploading). Does this mean extinction for us? What happens to the rest of the world? Do we offer, or even force, uploading to the old, the sick or the poor?
I'll consider uploading, but only if my meat body is way past its use-by-date. Hopefully by the time we have this tech, we will also be able to enhance our bodies and extend our lives indefinitely, so uploading isn't the only option. The possibilities of an electronic world are endless, and will be tempting.

I think all life is important. (OK, maybe not philip335) We have destroyed enough species since our brief rise to power. I think it will soon be time for some payback. All species have a drive to multiply. Let's give them all a hand.

Even if we embrace an enhanced or artificial world, why not create some paradises out there, where only barren rocks are now.

Latrosicarius

13th April 2007 - 05:54 PM

QUOTE ("N O M"+)

1. Yes it is a basic assumption. If I was interested in debating that, I would use the other forum.

No it's not. This is definitely NOT an assumption that you can make! If you do want to argue for this, they GO TO YOUR OTHER THREAD. I'm insulted that you would just step over this issue like you are so sure of yourself that you can just assume you are correct. The ONLY "evidence" we have for evolution is that it *might* *possibly* *maybe* *could* happen IF an almost impossibly low chance of many random conditions occurred simultaneously. Seeing as there has never been any observations of ANYTHING evolving from one species into another, there's actually more evidence AGAINST evolution than for it. Therefore, I'd have to argue that your continued belief in evolution is just as much of a leap of FAITH as religious people have to believe in God. I HAVE a college degree if cell biology and by you continuing to make such assumptions I KNOW FOR A FACT that you don't know what the hell you are talking about in regards to how evolution works.

QUOTE ("N O M"+)

2. But there would be life. That is the point. If you want human life, then the more advanced option is the one to use.

I think most people could care less if you happen to evolve some bacteria on a planet half way across the galaxy.

QUOTE ("N O M"+)

3. That is like saying "Why have children, they will just grow up and move away, and we won't see them again."

I believe the predominant thought on parenting is that you have children in order to teach them, share with them, and care for them. The human experience, yadda yadda yadda. When they are older, you not only have a child, but you also have a friend... someone who can reciprocate your efforts, share experiences mutually, and in the end, care for you when you are too feeble to care for yourself.

We are not frogs who are content to inseminate as many females and produce as many eggs as possible, for the sole purpose of spreading their genetic material.

QUOTE ("N O M"+)

There is no benefit to us here at all, except the chance that our legacy will continue on other worlds. That is enough for me.

The idea that if you die, there are other humans in existence to take your place may be satisfying to some people, but it's hardly worth the amount of time/energy/money/resources that would DETRACT from everyone else. Save OUR children... not some bacteria on another planet.

N O M

14th April 2007 - 01:40 AM

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 14 2007, 05:54 AM)

blah blah

I stated some basic assupmtions. That means it is off this topic to debate it. If you don't like it go and discuss it somewhere else. I have no interest whatsoever in debating this issue with you Latrosicarius. Go to the section I suggested, there will be plenty of people who will.

fivedoughnut

14th April 2007 - 03:27 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 13 2007, 08:57 AM)

Even if we embrace an enhanced or artificial world, why not create some paradises out there, where only barren rocks are now.

Good point NOM .... why not indeed!

Incidentally, if I was a full time terraformer I'd leave a 1:4:9 monolith behind on every job.

N O M

14th April 2007 - 11:50 PM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 14 2007, 03:27 PM)

Incidentally, if I was a full time terraformer I'd leave a 1:4:9 monolith behind on every job.

Seriously though. I think an advanced colony raised and educated by the AI would certainly be informed of their origins. But what about the primitive colonies I suggested earlier? What about the worlds that get terraformed without humans?

Something left behind, like a monolith left on a moon, may not be such a bad idea.

N O M

15th April 2007 - 09:21 PM

Oops, I just noticed that I referred to a post that must have failed when I posted it, so here it is again.

Specialist Seeds

The cheapness of the seeding method, relative to generation ship colonising, allows for variations of the genetic material to be seeded. Especially on planets not intended for human life.

These specialist seeds could involve only introducing a limited sample of genetic material. For example, the animals and plants to be used only coming from Australia. Ecosystems that have developed in isolation, such as in Australia are vulnerable species from other places. If there were no other ecosystems on the planet, there would be no risk of contamination.

Of course the ecosystems within the oceans and costal areas need to be considered as well.

I live in New Zealand, a group of islands rich with bird life, but has no native mammals (except for seals and two small bats). The human introduction of mammals and marsupials has destroyed many local bird, insect and even plant populations. It was the isolation of places like New Zealand that allowed its unique flora and fauna to develop. Recreation of these unique ecosystems would undo many of the ecological mistakes our species has made.

Some ecosystems have developed due to very specialised climates. A world could be seeded on the poles with Earth polar life and sea-life, but were otherwise left untouched. It is likely that the plant and animal life would quickly adapt to live in the tropics. It probably wouldn't be too long before the animals had evolved into forms we aren't familiar with.

Primitive Colonies

The specialist seed model could be applied to human colonisation as well. A seed could be prepared where one ethnic group for example only includes the genetic material for their group. This could be done to undo the mistake of colonialism, that many people believe to have happened to many primitive peoples when encountered by western explorers. The above example of Australian-only genetic material could be accompanied with Australian Aboriginal people. The human children, once gestated, could be raised by androids that are programmed to live and act like Aboriginals. The children need not even know that they have been raised by androids.

A planet could be seeded with Innuit people in the poles, tribes from New Guinea, in the tropics, Amazon natives in the rain forests. These people would be simultaneously gestated by the AI and taught the skills and beliefs that the original people had before their cultures were polluted by ours. One world would easily support several such groups, as the different geographic regions would have the climate each ethnic group has become accustomed to.

This scenario raises some ethical questions:

How ethical is it to colonise a world, but only raise the people to a primitive level?
Would it only be pandering to romanticised notions of Pre-european culture?
Do we add some basic medical and scientific knowledge?
Do we include traditional, but distasteful (to our culture) practices, such as piercing and stretching of the upper lip?
What about religion? If, for example, the Island of Tonga was chosen for a Pre-european colonisation, what religion would the colonists be taught? Tonga is 100% christian now, but shouldn't the original religion be the one taught?
This scenario may be easily abused. It would certainly suit Nazi ideals of eugenics. Another possibility for abuse is inclusion only of genetic material from the rich.

Guest_soultech

16th April 2007 - 07:42 AM

I have been thinking about the basic heading `Using nanotechnology to seed the Universe'And came to the conclusion Nah No, I've got a better idea!

The prospect of building a space craft 10 km in diameter in outer-space would be an engineering nightmare, we would ever get it together or even hold together under acceleration. What we could try doing is terraform a reasonably round asteroid composed of heavy metals and building the spacecraft around it. If we used an asteroid 1 km in diameter we could build a colossal five star hotel on it using the asteroid as a foundational base An asteroid that size would have its own gravity however small and attract solar wind that would be captured from all directions of the asteroid using fusion as a power source, high energy lasers to materialize mater/antimatter annihilation's giving the complete E =MC^2 energy rather an a few Mev's from fusion, the the captured solar winds could be channeled to a specially engineered propulsion engine through the diameter of the asteroid! A type of laser fusion annihilation solar wind scram jet. the 5 star hotel around in every direction of the asteroid would be a super city with more floor levels than the tallest building on earth with enough room for hundreds of generations of occupants, as well as factories, self sustaining Eco systems in place with robots that would build machinery and space craft to terraform a suitable large planet for human colonization and this craft that we have engineered would simply become one of its moons `How Romantic'! Whilst humans colonize the planet

N O M

16th April 2007 - 08:56 AM

QUOTE (Guest_soultech+Apr 16 2007, 07:42 PM)

The prospect of building a space craft 10 km in diameter in outer-space would be an engineering nightmare, we would ever get it together or even hold together under acceleration.

I'm not sure where you have this idea from, but it isn't this thread.

QUOTE

What we could try doing is terraform a reasonably round asteroid composed of heavy metals and building the spacecraft around it.

You don't terraform asteroids, you terraform planets.
Asteroids can be mined, the resources produced can be used to build something attached to the asteroid or seperate, but it isn't terraforming.

Guest_Soultech

16th April 2007 - 09:53 AM

Pls excuse me NOM, but teraform is a new addition to my vocabulary and 've think ive only used it perhaps three time and heard of it recently in somones post in relation to your topic starting post. That being understood and it better be! You know damn well what i ment to do with that asteroid. That being drill into it, build structures upon stuctures upon it and convert It and a foundational platform around what will then become essentially a 1 km or 1 nautical mile diameter floating five star hotel with propulsion system and the whole thing becoming a Romantic moon upon success around the suitable planet our human brains decide to colonise. Your not stupid you can see the possibilities of how a craft can be engenered around a foundational platform like an asteroid of reasonably workable size. Do you have any constuctive opinion as to how my base unit structure craft can be improved upon or do you want to impress nerds with almost never used word like teraforming and their figure of speach dictionary meanings, I MEAN informing me of the fact of teraforming relates to planets only means as much to the entireity of my knoledge and wisdom as a drop of rain means to an ocean! Big Deal!
I will add some sudgetions to improve the structure of the craft: That being it can be a structure of much smaller engeneered astroids all joined together to form a large massive vehicle craft whatever in a semblance to the way a large neuclii is composed of a bunch of protons and neutrons.

Do you have some better idea of how to colonise the hevens aside from squeezing your klien weenie into a nanotube and particle beaming it to the andromeda galaxy?

Guest_soultech

16th April 2007 - 02:24 PM

I have come to the conclusion that building a supercity like a 5 star hotel around an engineered asteroid with an inbuilt propulsion system throughout its diameter, and a strategically designed solid egg shape crust of assembled and welded steal upon what the functioning craft will be built upon is the correct approach to industrializing the solar system. Once assembled and functionally life supporting systems are in place THEN! the craft can `digest' the contents in its belly! meaning that 1 nautical mile of rock (asteroid)!

Mining machinery can then drill out chunks of rock! Then using mass drivers project the unrefined minerals to refinery factory craft for processing (Similar size), Once the craft no longer has any asteroid rock in it, the egg shape steel container will be empty and available to be used as a fuel tank or cargo tank or even simply a tank to collect ice or frozen CO2 from rings around planets with intention to be taken to planets like Mars that doesn't seem to have much water at all. Asteroid may as well be the foundation upon what large craft are built because otherwise how much more steel would you have to blast of into space to make such a massive construction job?

Whatever the case when compled it would be a bigger marvel than the Pyramids!

N O M

16th April 2007 - 08:46 PM

If you want to discuss the merrits of your idea, I suggest you join and start a thread about it. It doesn't have much to do with the subject of this thread.

On your idea, read The Reality Dysfunction by Peter F. Hamilton. He explores several ideas for orbital habitats.

Also look at the University of Wisconsin NEEP lecture notes on Potential Resources On and From the Asteroids/Comets

[edit]added the last link[/edit]

N O M

17th April 2007 - 01:50 AM

Soultech did what I suggested and created a thread: Industrializing the Solar System.

Latrosicarius

17th April 2007 - 07:09 PM

N O M, I believe my post on the previous page, which you summarized as "blah blah", indeed had more than one point, yet you merely sidestepped that one issue and ignored the rest.

tikay

17th April 2007 - 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 12:09 PM)

N O M, I believe my post on the previous page, which you summarized as "blah blah", indeed had more than one point, yet you merely sidestepped that one issue and ignored the rest.

Probably because you are trying in vain, to go off topic with another unecessary creationists versus evolutionists thread in the place of this one. There are plenty of places to discuss that in this forum. Why not stick to the topic alone, either you are interested in it or....you should not be participating in this thread...just my opinion.

Latrosicarius

17th April 2007 - 08:10 PM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 17 2007, 07:53 PM)

Probably because you are trying in vain, to go off topic with another unecessary creationists versus evolutionists thread in the place of this one. There are plenty of places to discuss that in this forum. Why not stick to the topic alone, either you are interested in it or....you should not be participating in this thread...just my opinion.

It is apparent that you didn't read my whole post either. As I already said, only the first paragraph was about that.

For the record, since you obviously don't read yourself, I was not discussing the veracity of creationism over evolution, but the hypocritical nature of NOM's responses:

First he says do not talk about creationism or evolution in this thread. Then in his very next post, he basically says "since evolution is obviously right, blah blah blah".

I thought that line of hypocritical logic was absurd and I pointed it out. I never once tried to engage in a debate about which school of thought is correct.

However, I did point out NOM's understanding of the environmental influences of the concept of evolution were critically flawed if he thinks that life would evolve similarly on another world as it supposedly did on earth, EVEN if under nearly exact circumstances. So much of the mutation is random, and the rest is ALL dependent on the environment. Very little is dependent on the initial genetic material. Therefore his logic that if we seed a planet with the foundations of life, that something similar would evolve naturally is totally ill-founded.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 12:07 AM

Latrosicarius.
Yes, I belive evolution to be an unarguable fact. I will not discuss this with you here or anywhere else. I don't care, in any way whatsoever, about your beliefs on that subject.
Evolution is necessary to this proposal, end of subject.

Other than trying to get the discussion onto evolution, you have mostly said. "Who cares". That is your opinion, fine. If you don't care, find somewhere else to post. Your not caring isn't worth my effort to discuss.

QUOTE

However, I did point out NOM's understanding of the environmental influences of the concept of evolution were critically flawed if he thinks that life would evolve similarly on another world as it supposedly did on earth, EVEN if under nearly exact circumstances. So much of the mutation is random, and the rest is ALL dependent on the environment. Very little is dependent on the initial genetic material. Therefore his logic that if we seed a planet with the foundations of life, that something similar would evolve naturally is totally ill-founded.

Wrong summation. I don't assume that life will evolve the same as Earth. That has never been the point.

I originally proposed seeding the whole Earth ecosystem. It would evolve to meet local conditions, though the AI would have attempted to make those as close to Earth's as possible.
What you have commented on was a variation to the original proposal, that I suggested is possible with our current technology. Merely seeding the very basics of life and leaving it to its own resources. It would take millions of years to evolve complex life. Of course it wouldn't evolve exactly the same as Earth. It is still life.

BTW. If you have a problem with attitude, don't attack on the first post.

Latrosicarius

18th April 2007 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE (N O M+)

Yes, I belive evolution to be an unarguable fact.

No scientist would ever say this unless they had personal or spiritual reasons for saying so.

QUOTE (N O M+)

I will not discuss this with you here or anywhere else.

Not that I was ever trying to debate the veracity of the theory of evolution itself, but the fact that you don't want to discuss this AT ALL leads me to believe that you are just as entrenched in your beliefs as a spiritual person is in his.

QUOTE (N O M+)

I don't care, in any way whatsoever, about your beliefs on that subject.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. It's apparent that you have not read a single word I said. If you did, you would see that not one time did I state my beliefs on the subject. Are you assuming that because I disagree with your logic that I am a fundamentalist Christian or something? I can assure you that I am not. I have an educational background in biology and evolution and the only issues that I have with what you are saying are:

(1) your completely bass-ackwards understanding of the theory of evolution, and
(2) your apparent disregard for the scientific method and any real evidence for or against the theory.

QUOTE (N O M+)

Evolution is necessary to this proposal, end of subject.

Since your vision of evolution is incorrect, your proposal won't work (at least not the portion about seeding life and naturally letting life evolve and expecting it to either turn out like humans, or be compatible with human cohabitation)

I'm NOT trying to debate creationism vs evolution. I don't know why you think I am. In fact, it's quite insulting that you are putting these words in my mouth and sidestepping the issue. I'm just pointing out this statistical impossibility.

Do you always get this upset when someone points out a flaw? It seems you're taking this quite personally.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 03:39 AM

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 18 2007, 03:31 PM)

blah, blah - yet again

What part of "I will not discuss this with you" don't you understand?

No, don't reply. I don't care.

Latrosicarius

18th April 2007 - 03:52 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 18 2007, 03:39 AM)

What part of "I will not discuss this with you" don't you understand?

No, don't reply. I don't care.

Okay, I'll stop. It's obvious that you either cannot or will not participate in an adult conversation, so I have no wish to continue wasting time on you. At least not in this particular thread.

It's a shame though, I do enjoy many of your other threads. You have a lot of very good ideas. Too bad you can't take criticism.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 04:13 AM

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 18 2007, 03:52 PM)

Okay, I'll stop. It's obvious that you either cannot or will not participate in an adult conversation, so I have no wish to continue wasting time on you. At least not in this particular thread.

It's a shame though, I do enjoy many of your other threads. You have a lot of very good ideas. Too bad you can't take criticism.

I will happily discuss with you, but not on the subject of whether evolution happens or not. It is a subject that will totally hijack the thread. People's views are polarised with very little middle ground. There is a whole section devoted to discussing this, but most of the discussions are pretty cyclic.

I have assumed that you are trying to hijack the thread onto discussing evolution. I may have miss-judged you, if so I apologise. (I thought about putting this in a PM, but it's better out in public)

That said. I don't want to get into a "evolution happens"-"no it doesn't"-"you're an idiot"-"so are you"-etc... discussion. I would like to explore ideas about seeding planets around distant stars. Not agreeing it is worth the investment, is a valid position, but not one I agree with.

Latrosicarius

18th April 2007 - 02:37 PM

I don't mean this to be a "last-word" kind of thing, but I just want to say thanks for your last message. Hopefully we can put our differences in opinion aside and move on amicably.

OldWoman1904

18th April 2007 - 03:19 PM

just an observation if i may

almost every room that i visit is the same...arguing, proving wrong, picking at spelling--

why is it a contest? Im a monkey, you're a monkey...

Battle of the brains...

Is this how brains work? The right side fights with the left? Maybe so...

The more connected the brain is, the more efficient.

Maybe arguing is how we connect..

That's stupid.

Feelings...that's what it is...

Aw! you guys have feelings...that is so sweet

tikay

18th April 2007 - 07:52 PM

Cool....now back to seeding the universe?

I am very interested in how this would work. I cant really comprehend of it much for...to me it is an altogether new concept, which is exciting and new!

Latrosicarius

18th April 2007 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 4 2007, 09:55 PM)

The AI should spend a significant amount of time studying a target planet before doing anything that could disturb any local life. There is no reason why this study shouldn't take several decades.

Every effort should go into ensuring that the AI is capable of very complex analysis and decision making. It should err on the side of caution, so where there is any doubt at all the primary mission (terraforming and colonising) should be cancelled.

The Earth ecosystem seed I am proposing in this thread is intended to duplicate Earth life on lifeless planets. It isn't about colonising planets that already have their own unique life.

So what's wrong with bulldozing over the target planet if it already has life on it? As long as it's not intelligent life.

It's likely that any habitable planet we find might have some kind of life on it (maybe bacteria, fungi, or plants)

So why should we turn around. I would go for it anyway and start terriforming it to suit our needs. You're statistically not going to find another prime choice planet.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 08:09 PM

Thanks Tikay. This was an idea I had from considering the possibilities that nanotechnology could make possible, though there were some books I have read (referred to earlier) that have touched on something similar.
I'm trying to think outside the box of the Star-Trek future. It is possible that we never discover FTL travel, but that need not limit us to the one world.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 08:34 PM

QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Apr 19 2007, 03:19 AM)

almost every room that i visit is the same...arguing, proving wrong, picking at spelling--

You have a point, but this particular hatchet has been buried for now.

I was interested in what you posted in the The immortal colony ship thread.

QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Apr 19 2007, 05:17 AM)

no need for the goshdarn body.......

everybody log on, and upload into the system, the web.

Then transport the web to the desired point and set up camp

It is very similar to what I am suggesting here, though I am suggesting taking the whole ecosystem rather than just the humans.
I hadn't considered uploading in this proposal, though it could make sense. It may also make the AI unnecessary, as a committee of uploaded personalities could do the same job. The ethical decisions required would be easier to manage too. One problem though, uploaded personalities would probably be less likely to want to abandon a mission on finding primitive life.

thinkbig!

18th April 2007 - 08:39 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 10 2007, 01:51 AM)

and
I think you need to change your ID.

In what way is this "taking a big chance"?
What sort of damage are we going to do to the universe?

There are billions of stars in our galaxy. Even with near-light-speed spacecraft, it would take millions of years to colonize the whole galaxy. How could even going this far be wrong?

Unless you can calculate without question, that not only can we colonize other planets, but that it would be harmless in every way you are taking a chance. What makes it a big chance is that it would be something that we have a lack of knowledge about. It's not worth the time and money it would take. Think, if we grew from humble humans with simple tools and simple knowledge, to intelligent humans with ever growing technology, and have done this much damage to our planet, then imagine how quickly we could destroy the next with technology and knowledge we don't have to learn again. Or if you mean seeding, like sending out the components to form life, then thats just stupid. Just send it out and leave it for our next generations of life to handle should something go wrong.
I can't tell you exactly what bad things will happen. Thats why it's such a bad idea. There is no actual way to know the reprocutions of this pie in the sky idea. The best thing that could happen is we could find a way to colonize and life goes on, only on another planet. The worst thing that could happen is unkown. Besides, do we really need an unlimited amount of space to inhabit. We can't even handle this little globe.
Why was it that i should change my ID. Because I don't agree with you. Get over it.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 09:52 PM

The very things that scare you with this are what excites me. Unknown things will happen. That is the point.

Seeded life evolving differently to Earth on a planet 10s of light years away will never be able to harm us. So there is no risk.

The ID thing is because in any of the posts I have read of yours, on any thread, I have yet to see evidence of you "thinking" and certainly no thinking "big".

thinkbig!

18th April 2007 - 10:29 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 18 2007, 09:52 PM)

The very things that scare you with this are what excites me. Unknown things will happen. That is the point.

Seeded life evolving differently to Earth on a planet 10s of light years away will never be able to harm us. So there is no risk.

The ID thing is because in any of the posts I have read of yours, on any thread, I have yet to see evidence of you "thinking" and certainly no thinking "big".

I thought the point was to create life on a life supporting planet. Not to see what unknown things will happen. I will assume that since it couldn't harm us because of the distance, then there is no way we would know if it worked. Lets just shoot some DNA into space without consequence. Out of sight out of mind right. This idea is irresponsible at best. We can't even shoot a shuttle out of earth 100 percent of the time without error. How are we going to be able to shoot dna, 10s of light years away accurately. Like there is a straight line all the way to a life supporting planet with nothing in the way that may cause our little DNA bullet to stray. Besides, if we do find a clear path what makes us think the planet will still be there when the DNA arrives. It would be a long trip right. Or have we found out how to teleport it through space. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a bunch of DNA floating aimlessly through space. The point is, there is no way to ensure that everything goes to plan. And if it did not there is no way to tell what'll happen. Would you agree with at least that last statement.

So, it is because we don't agree that I should change my ID. You don't agree with my posts so you must know how i'm thinking right. You should come to terms with the fact that I do not value your opinion when it comes to ID choosing, and picking on my name is not going solidify your point in any way.

N O M

18th April 2007 - 10:44 PM

You either haven't read the earlier posts, or haven't understood them.

I have never suggested "DNA floating aimlessly through space". The proposal does rely on certain advances in science, I suggest you look into what nanotech will be capable of.

There won't be a "life supporting planet". A hostile planet will have to be terraformed.

and

QUOTE

there is no way to ensure that everything goes to plan

Yes there is. The seeding proposal includes an AI.

I did suggest a possible variation to the proposal that is possible to our current technology. Maybe this is what you have latched onto with your objections. If so, you have a point. With today's tech, we won't have guaranteed AI control. It may be reason enough to delay until the full seeding proposal is possible.

tikay

19th April 2007 - 12:40 AM

QUOTE (thinkbig!+Apr 18 2007, 01:39 PM)

Unless you can calculate without question, that not only can we colonize other planets, but that it would be harmless in every way you are taking a chance. What makes it a big chance is that it would be something that we have a lack of knowledge about. It's not worth the time and money it would take. Think, if we grew from humble humans with simple tools and simple knowledge, to intelligent humans with ever growing technology, and have done this much damage to our planet, then imagine how quickly we could destroy the next with technology and knowledge we don't have to learn again. Or if you mean seeding, like sending out the components to form life, then thats just stupid. Just send it out and leave it for our next generations of life to handle should something go wrong.
I can't tell you exactly what bad things will happen. Thats why it's such a bad idea. There is no actual way to know the reprocutions of this pie in the sky idea. The best thing that could happen is we could find a way to colonize and life goes on, only on another planet. The worst thing that could happen is unkown. Besides, do we really need an unlimited amount of space to inhabit. We can't even handle this little globe.
Why was it that i should change my ID. Because I don't agree with you. Get over it.

This was my first thought on the matter. If we are so quick to destroy our natural environment, why would (an AI) be a superior steward. But when you think of it, the Artificial Intelligence, is supposed to be programmed to it's aim. And the goal being to extend life-forms into terraformed environs well...maybe it could work.

I appreciate that NOM has decided unequivically, apparently, that no other life should be destroyed in any event. Also appreciated is his great ability to think Big!

If one is open minded and able to consider much, without argument, that then, (to me anyway) is this ability of broad-mindedness, and the avatar you have chosen, leads one to believe they might find an open mind in you. It isn't hard to comprehend that people would expect this of you then, is it? I too have seen you (writing) or "acting" in a closed minded way in other postings, it is just curious! ~thats all!

tikay

19th April 2007 - 12:50 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 18 2007, 01:34 PM)

You have a point, but this particular hatchet has been buried for now.

I was interested in what you posted in the The immortal colony ship thread. It is very similar to what I am suggesting here, though I am suggesting taking the whole ecosystem rather than just the humans.
I hadn't considered uploading in this proposal, though it could make sense. It may also make the AI unnecessary, as a committee of uploaded personalities could do the same job. The ethical decisions required would be easier to manage too. One problem though, uploaded personalities would probably be less likely to want to abandon a mission on finding primitive life.

I thought that we might eventually not need the skeletal system, innerds and the like to support our brains, but honestly it works very well and who the hell in their right minds wants to forgo the sex act alone? I mean there are wonderful benefits to having a body of every kind....sunkissed skin in surf...swimming underwater, feeling your stregnth, walking or running along a nature path, holding your children close, your family or friends embrace, just too many things that have been added to the mental, to make mans body a wanted entity....(more ways than one)

I hope there is no "advance" that eventually disregards the importance of the body in nature. I can't imagine one...

The mind and body get along rather symbiotically so why want to dispose of either one?

N O M

19th April 2007 - 01:48 AM

Tikay. I have also thought a lot about the prospects that nanotech allow for improving and/or extending life. It would certainly be possible to replace most of the body or even upload to an artificial construct. But is there a point where you are no longer truly human? Does this matter? How much is just meat? I personally would prefer to keep as much of my living matter as possible, but I would definitely consider uploading a serious option if the only other choice was death.

There will definitely be a significant investment in using nanotech to extend life. Hopefully that means keeping our living cells safely replicating past their currently programmed expiry.
Many people may chose not to extend their lives for spiritual or religious reasons. That is their choice, and it would not be an easy one. Physical immortality vs the belief of immortality of the soul.

The life extension/uploading is slightly off-topic, though its development may be necessary for this seeding proposal to be achieved. Certainly the storage and maintenance of the genetic material within the seed and eventual gestation of seeded life will require life extension technology.

kjw

19th April 2007 - 02:44 AM

QUOTE

N O M Posted on Today at 11:48 AM The life extension/uploading is slightly off-topic,

fair enough, however if uploading were a possibility, then a further option arises. upload into a virtual universe where you think you are biological. no terraform needed, no need to travel vast distances. we could all exist floating throughout space avoiding collisions and keeping an eye on the battery life.

the only concern is proton decay, oh an paying Linden Labs s*^t loads of $ to expand their services

N O M

19th April 2007 - 02:57 AM

QUOTE (kjw+Apr 19 2007, 02:44 PM)

the only concern is proton decay, oh an paying Linden Labs s*^t loads of $ to expand their services

Seriously though, it is an option. But the hardware will have to be hosted somewhere in the real universe. It will always be vulterable to major disasters.

With uploading comes the ability to make copies. Why not keep the original upload in the virtual paradise and send copies out to the stars?

tikay

19th April 2007 - 03:17 AM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 18 2007, 06:48 PM)

Tikay. I have also thought a lot about the prospects that nanotech allow for improving and/or extending life. It would certainly be possible to replace most of the body or even upload to an artificial construct. But is there a point where you are no longer truly human? Does this matter? How much is just meat? I personally would prefer to keep as much of my living matter as possible, but I would definitely consider uploading a serious option if the only other choice was death.

There will definitely be a significant investment in using nanotech to extend life. Hopefully that means keeping our living cells safely replicating past their currently programmed expiry.
Many people may chose not to extend their lives for spiritual or religious reasons. That is their choice, and it would not be an easy one. Physical immortality vs the belief of immortality of the soul.

The life extension/uploading is slightly off-topic, though its development may be necessary for this seeding proposal to be achieved. Certainly the storage and maintenance of the genetic material within the seed and eventual gestation of seeded life will require life extension technology.

There is nothing in my (self made religion) that would stop me from extending the life I have been given. If this technology became available I would have to decide what to do at that time. My life as it is has been long and sometimes tedious to extremes. I am not sure that I would forgo the journey without...(upon death) to regenerate the spirit, before (i believe) re-integration into a new body, that of an infant. In that case I will still be present in another future time though it will take a bit to grow again to maturity. See a belief in reincarnation (in effect means that I will myself to do this) and, alas, means I still get to be here in the future with the cellular memory of evolution and with new intelligence within, brought from other spheres attached to my newly integrated soul.

If I should decide to upload the intellect in some manner (sounds bizarre) or have my brain placed in some form of longevity chamber to keep the genius that the world would need? I am not sure how that could ever be made an option. I think an ever more broad mind, the ability to retain and add to already glommed information may in fact make for a superior type person/mind but that this is not what may be called for in evolutionary processes, then again, who knows?

It is something interesting to think about. A sort of Human-Hydrophonics using amniotic/bloodlike type bodily fluids for the nerves to float about in? A terminator (II) type....humanoid droid? I dunno, it's pretty crazy!

N O M

19th April 2007 - 03:59 AM

QUOTE (tikay+Apr 19 2007, 03:17 PM)

It is something interesting to think about. A sort of Human-Hydrophonics using amniotic/bloodlike type bodily fluids for the nerves to float about in? A terminator (II) type....humanoid droid? I dunno, it's pretty crazy!

Terminator III at least. She was a much cuter model.

OldWoman1904

19th April 2007 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE (N O M+Apr 18 2007, 08:34 PM)

You have a point, but this particular hatchet has been buried for now.

I was interested in what you posted in the The immortal colony ship thread. It is very similar to what I am suggesting here, though I am suggesting taking the whole ecosystem rather than just the humans.
I hadn't considered uploading in this proposal, though it could make sense. It may also make the AI unnecessary, as a committee of uploaded personalities could do the same job. The ethical decisions required would be easier to manage too. One problem though, uploaded personalities would probably be less likely to want to abandon a mission on finding primitive life.

the whole system....yes....

please, paint me a picture of the hypothetical physical structure of this system?

what would be the source of energy and what would be the location in space?

i didnt see your post......until now....

N O M

23rd April 2007 - 02:45 AM

QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Apr 20 2007, 06:48 AM)

please, paint me a picture of the hypothetical physical structure of this system?

In the first post of this thread, I suggested the following:

The seed would have the following components:

AI - this would need to be a very robust system, as it would probably need to be self operating for several centuries.
ecosystem genetic seed - DNA information to recreate an entire Earth ecosystem. It could be as detailed as every known plant, animal, fungi, bacteria, etc; or it could be a simplified ecosystem with the bare minimum number of species. Either way, it would need to include enough genetic diversity in each species for it to be viable.
human genetic seed - since it will be built by us, we get some preferential treatment. It could include genetic material "banked" by anyone we wanted. It should certainly include enough for an isolated colony to survive without becoming dangerously inbred.
information seed - the total of human knowledge, or at least all that we are willing or able to provide. It could include a download of the entire internet; or all literary works; or it could include all our scientific knowledge.
sensor package - it is a spaceship, so it needs to know as much as possible about where it is headed. It may need to decide to change its destination while en-route, if it discovers something wrong with its current destination.
industrial package - everything required to mine resources from asteroids, comets, moons or a destination planet. It will also include the ability to produce any tools, probes, or anything else required. It would use mined resources to eventually build gestation chambers to start recreating the ecosystem. It would also produce the equipment required to terraform a target planet.
drive - this could be a long-life, but relatively low power ion drive, probably with a nuclear power plant; it could be a solar sail; or it could be as advanced as an antimatter drive giving a fairly short, but very high acceleration.

QUOTE

what would be the source of energy?

The energy source and drive are a combination of effort & cost, size, speed and expected lifetime. The decision on power and drive will of course be determined by what technology we have available when (OK, if) we build the seeds.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

what would be the source of energy?

The energy source and drive are a combination of effort & cost, size, speed and expected lifetime. The decision on power and drive will of course be determined by what technology we have available when (OK, if) we build the seeds.

what would be the location in space?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question.

Capracus

9th May 2007 - 10:02 PM

Seeding the galaxy, it may be underway as we speak.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0705...c_bacteria.html

N O M

10th May 2007 - 12:01 AM

Like the article says, there are low odds that any bacteria will survive on these rocket casings. But I suppose even a slim chance is better than no chance.

I'm suggesting that we do this in a more controlled manner, so there is a good chance of the life surviving transport and getting to a viable planet.

holoman

10th May 2007 - 03:28 AM

Man must solve the problem of space travel. There must be something around
the world that scientist have over looked or not looked at all. I ran across
this on google after reading some of the keywords in the threads on this post.

The person claims to have something but doesn't give any hint what it is.

Which is disappointing now that my curiousity is up. If anyone finds out what it
is could they please post it. The news is from Bulgaria.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=U...20light%20speed

N O M

10th May 2007 - 04:01 AM

I've seen this exact same story before. Personally I'm sceptical of this sort of claim.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.