REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/03/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
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.
I disagree. Already we have achieved petri-dish fertilization, and
soon may have petri-bowl pregnancy. Assuming we establish a permanent
habitat in space, we'll have time to study the way cells work to where
we can generate a living cell from nothing but the DNA (being sure to
include all the symbiots of course: nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA,
centrole DNA, and any other symbiots or escapees that may be hiding in
the cell) and some chemicals. At that point, very small spaceprobes
can deliver all the DNA of all the creatures from Earth to spots
lightyears away by sending only the encoding of all the DNA and a
machine to bootstrap a chemical factory, then recreating the DNA and
the cells and the lifeforms in the new location. Of course the
encoding of life can withstand higher accelerations and random jarring
than the life itself could, and no life-support would be needed any
time along the voyage, so cruder transportation means could be used
such as pulsed Earth-based lasers or hydrogen-fusion explosions. By
sending out lots of these tiny probes to lots of spots in the
universe, travelling at relativistic speeds, we may be able to spread
our genetic material throughout the universe in a rather short time,
as an alternative to spreading computers/androids throughout the
universe, if we should so choose.
Of course after this initial seeding, evolution will occur everywhere
and 1E11 years hence much of our genetic material will have been
replaced by better (more survivable) genetic material, leaving only a
small amount of our original stuff in its present form. But there will
be many more chances for our stuff to mix with the new genes and find
favorable combinations, so here and there one of our genes may
actually survive, and other places some other genes may survive, and
even if computers take over most of the universe by then, infestations
of biological life will remain around and about, and some significant
percentage of our current gene pool may actually be around in various
nooks and crannies even then.
On the other hand, if we stay here and just send robots out there,
virtually all of our current genes will be EXTINCT in 1E11 years as
you suggest.LIN%MIT-ML@sri-unix.UUCP (01/04/84)
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML> why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe? For what purpose?
LIN%MIT-ML@sri-unix.UUCP (01/07/84)
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Date: 3 January 1984 23:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe? For
what purpose?
[The answer is obvious to anyone who understands evolution by natural
selection.] Because we have genes that give us the desire to survive
(if we didn't, we wouldn't be here now) and because we have genes that
give us the power of analytic thought (at least, most of us, you and I
and everyone on this mailing list etc.) and because our science has
shown us enough about the Universe to understand the concept and
benefit-toward-survival of widespread distribution of lifeforms
carrying our genes and our technology has brought us very close to
feasibility (just a few tens of years to go; out of 4.3 billion years
our genes have been evolving to date).
I think I see a flaw in your reasoning about natural selection, whose
principles I accept. Natural selection operates by giving each member
of a particular species a differential advantage over other species,
thereby enabling each of those members of the particular species to
survive at a higher rate. This operates at the level of theindividual
organism, and not at a species level. Only individual organisms have
a motivation to survive and to have offspring; the species behavior is
simply the result of collective individual behavior.
If you argue that mankind will *collectively* band together to
send its genes over the universe, mustn't you argue that somehow this
will be beneficial to individual humans?
I ask you, why would we WANT to stop nuclear
war, given that it's probably unstoppable? Sure we could WISH to stop
nuclear war, but WANTing to do so implies some belief it's a
reasonable/possible wish.
Because nuclear war indicates a distinct possibility that my children
will be fried. Thus, this ties into my wish for preserving my
individual genetic line. Still, if the war actually happens, I doubt
I would adopt a survivalist mentality.REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/10/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Date: 3 January 1984 23:22 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
why would we *want* to send our DNA molecules over the universe? For
what purpose?
[The answer is obvious to anyone who understands evolution by natural
selection.] Because we have genes that give us the desire to survive
(if we didn't, we wouldn't be here now) and because we have genes that
give us the power of analytic thought (at least, most of us, you and I
and everyone on this mailing list etc.) and because our science has
shown us enough about the Universe to understand the concept and
benefit-toward-survival of widespread distribution of lifeforms
carrying our genes and our technology has brought us very close to
feasibility (just a few tens of years to go; out of 4.3 billion years
our genes have been evolving to date). I.e. we want to survive (by
programing by our genes) and we will soon have a method to survive and
we know we are close to having that method so naturally we will want
to actually carry out that method of survival. In a lot of ways, the
conditional probability of instituting panspermia as soon as we can
(if we don't go extinct by nuclear war beforehand) is greater (more
likely) than the current/absolute probability that we'll realize we
have to prevent nuclear war to survive and that we'll choose to go
ahead and do that prevention and that we'll actually be capable of
preventing nuclear war. I ask you, why would we WANT to stop nuclear
war, given that it's probably unstoppable? Sure we could WISH to stop
nuclear war, but WANTing to do so implies some belief it's a
reasonable/possible wish.