dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL%SRI-NIC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/03/84)
I don't recall seeing Lin's message in this digest, (was it a private
message to REM?) but I'll respond anyway.
Date: 2 January 1984 15:34 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
on survival, i think that the odds are essentially zero that we will
contribute to the genetic pool in 10^11 years, regardless of nuclear
war, because I don't believe that interstellar space travel will ever
be possible.
Herb, I don't see how you can make this prediction. Similar
predictions were made for heavier-than-air flying vehicles, for
sattelites, for manned spacecraft. These predictions, like yours, were
made AFTER all the fundamental discoveries/inventions necessary had
already been made. Many different schemes have been outlined for
interstellar space travel that look feasible. Manmade objects are
already leaving the solar system at 10^-4 c -- and that's just with
chemical propulsion (and gravitational assists). Boost this velocity
by a factor of 50 to 100 and generation ships become feasible. I'll be
adventurous (some will say conservative) and predict that, baring
nuclear war or social collapse, a manned interstellar spacecraft will
leave the solar system before the end of the next century.
If you believe that there are many intelligent civilizations in the
galaxy (I don't) then you don't even need interstellar spacecraft to
spread human genes around the galaxy -- radio will do (reconstructing a
working cell on the other end is a problem left to the reader). It's
already possible to clone an entire human genome in bacterial hosts (in
fact, it's been done); so it won't be too many decades before an
entire human genome is sequenced.LIN%MIT-ML@sri-unix.UUCP (01/04/84)
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC
To: space at mit-mc
cc: lin
Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
I don't recall seeing Lin's message in this digest, (was it a private
message to REM?) but I'll respond anyway.
Date: 2 January 1984 15:34 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
on survival, i think that the odds are essentially zero that we will
contribute to the genetic pool in 10^11 years, regardless of nuclear
war, because I don't believe that interstellar space travel will ever
be possible.
Herb, I don't see how you can make this prediction. Similar
predictions were made for heavier-than-air flying vehicles, for
sattelites, for manned spacecraft. These predictions, like yours, were
made AFTER all the fundamental discoveries/inventions necessary had
already been made. Many different schemes have been outlined for
interstellar space travel that look feasible.
I didn't realize that my submission would go to SPACE, but I don't mind.
The reason I don't think I.S. travel will be possible is not for lack
of technology, but for lack of motivation. Previous earth-bound
explorers were at least motivated by the hope that they would be able
to establish some kind of reasonable two-way interchange between
whatever they found and where they came from. If you believe in
relativity, there is no way that two way interchange can take place on
time scales shorter than years (at the most optimistic prediction).
That doesn't qualify as reasonable two-way interchange.
Unmanned space probes are a different matter, and I suspect that it
will someday be possible to send robots throughout the galaxy. But
why would we do such a thing? To get back information, OK. To spread
our gene pool? Why?LIN%MIT-ML@sri-unix.UUCP (01/07/84)
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
You say there's no motivation to create progeny unless we can
establish two-way comunication with them.
Yet all around this planet I see creatures leaving progeny around;
animals lay eggs and abandom them, they later hatch, and the parents
never even get to hear the offspring say "mama" not to mention any
interactive communication; people plan for their children's education
in the event the parents should die, by buying life insurance, even
though the life insurance will never be paid to a child who can
converse with the parents, only to an orphaned child; people write
scientific papers with no insurance anyone at all will read them
during the scientist's lifetime.
You're right on this point - i retract my statement on two-way
communication. I still stand by my last msg concerning the motivation
for individual behavior (until that's proven specious as well).whp@cbnap.UUCP (01/08/84)
The motivation for reproduction should not be defended logically. Actually, humans (and I suppose other animals) do not select goals in a logical or even rational manner; in this respect the image many people have of themselves is false. Humans are *not* rational beings, instead they are rationalizing beings. The difference to me is that a ration being would chose completely logical, rational goals and carry them out in a logical and rational way. A rationalizing being choses goals to satisfy biological urges, but attempts to reach that goal through logical means. There is not defensible, imperitave motivation for manned exploration of the universe, but then there is no defensible logial reason for the continued existence of mankind either. The urges to explore, gain territory, etc., are similar to the urge to reproduce. These urges are programmed into our genes and historically seem to have been good survival traits. So it is probably true that many years from now these "stay at home" stick-in-the-muds will die out of the gene pool. I am sure that interstellar will happen despite the arguments of these people when enough people *want* it to happen. W. H. Pollock
REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/11/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> You say there's no motivation to create progeny unless we can establish two-way comunication with them. Yet all around this planet I see creatures leaving progeny around; animals lay eggs and abandom them, they later hatch, and the parents never even get to hear the offspring say "mama" not to mention any interactive communication; people plan for their children's education in the event the parents should die, by buying life insurance, even though the life insurance will never be paid to a child who can converse with the parents, only to an orphaned child; people write scientific papers with no insurance anyone at all will read them during the scientist's lifetime. -- The basic fact of evolution is that reproduction is one-way. A creature gives life to its offspring in the hope that the offspring will carry the genes onward after the original creature has died, not that the offspring will somehow give something back to the parents in the indefinite future. The motivation to reproduce is advantagous, those creatures which don't have it die out, and with them the gene pools that lack that gene. Apparently you somehow lack that gene, or misunderstand yourself enough to deny that motivation despite actually having that genetically-deterined motivation. If you don't want your genes spread around, that's fine with me, 1E11 years hence my genes will exist but yours will be extinct.