Seti at Home and SETI ...an outcomes poll

[John Jaksich]

SETI is a much discussed item here and is the fodder of discussion for the media -- but I am wondering about how some of us might think of the following notions ...in an almost anthropocentric afterthought. When I first started doing SETI@Home I was almost certain at the time that those who organized and dreamed up the notion of distributed computing-- might find their evidence within the next 100 to 150 years.

And as an after-thought, I imagined that if we were actually alone---> that might prompt humanity to become more respectful of the itself and within some period of time learn to live amongst itself and environment in a respectful manner. I believe that I am aware that we tend to be individuals who also have animal instincts of hunting and gathering --as well as-- being outright savages.


So my question is the following ----> if we don't find other intelligent life in the Universe what options do we ponder or possibly face?

[IsaacKuo]

I did not answer because none of the poll options apply. There should be an option for "other".

I believe humanity will venture out into the Milky Way galaxy and beyond, but this is not "transcending" the animal instinct. The animal instinct is one of expansion. I imagine robots will expand faster and further than biological homo sapiens, though.

[SolusLupus]

"Humanity will transcend its animal instinct and venture into the Milky Way
Humanity will not transcend its animal instinct and will ulitimately perish"

Why are these two things mutually exclusive? Why can't we keep our animal instinct and survive?

[01101001]

Bad poll.

[John Jaksich]

In its conception I thought it was a fairly decent --but I have muffed it ---I will try to rephrase it as an open question--if possible?

If we don't find evidence of intelligent life during the next 100 to 150 years via SETI --will humanity learn to adapt and live in a way that is conducive to its existence during that period of time? Does it matter?

My opinion is that the very essence of our problems on terra firma is because of our innate animal instinct of territoriality ...and other innate instincts, such as lust and greed--- To me it is almost as if when we become subjugated to the instinct--that there is a lack of balance in our approaches to daily life. I hope I am making some sense here?

[SolusLupus]

The thing is, even assuming your hypothesis is 100% true (and I think it is at least partially true), it doesn't spell out "End of Human Race".

Just because we have greed, doesn't make functional corporations that boost a nation's income nonviable.

Just because we have lust, doesn't mean everyone's a rapist. In fact, rapists are in the minority.

There will always be pitfalls; even assuming "perfect humans" (depending on your definition of "perfect", which makes that a bit of an impossibility), you'll still run into problems when trying to colonize space. Mistakes will always occur; even with full cooperation, one little fraction of a mistake could cause a malfunctioning colony.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of "Be Perfect or Die Off Completely". Even assuming total nuclear war (which didn't happen, I might add; that was pretty much the apex of your hypothesis, and the Proof of Concept), some small portion of humanity would survive, I'd think.

There will always be problems. There will always be glitches. Humans will never be perfect. That doesn't mean we cannot survive.

[John Jaksich]

Thank you very much SolusLupus.

....

There will always be problems. There will always be glitches. Humans will never be perfect. That doesn't mean we cannot survive.

I agree with you 100%...and what of the two extremes of what amounts to being a statistical curve? Surely, the law-abiding citizenry will rule over the other ... and secondly

we assume a majority under the curve that will follow their leaders or become leaders...how does their "lot" eventually improve?

Do we (humanity?) have say in the evolution of our brain...emotonal response to joy and pain? How do we improve upon our own evolution ...in a way to aid our own survival and propagation?

[SolusLupus]

It may be because I'm sick and/or tired, but I didn't understand a thing of what you were saying there.

[John Jaksich]

Sorry to hear about it...( I hope you feel better!)

I guess what I am trying to say is:

1) I agree with what you said
then let me explain what I am trying to say:

A) Evolution implies a survival of the fittest---

so ... optimize the evolutionary path in a manner that will assure a positive outcome -- but w/o having to brutally compete within our own species (i.e.... let's say someone is born with a disposition for violence --)... they would eventually (and most probably) be medicated or incarcerated or both. Isn't this kind of the direction in which we are currently heading?

It is a "leap-of-faith" to believe that we can accelerate the evolutionary path in our own backyard (Earth)...but a quite different ball to play with it in the yard of the Solar System

so

B) Accelerate the evolutionary path in a step-wise manner...

Once we have assured a better society...how does one venture into the Solar System and beyond...

Send probes...

Experimentation...

Collect data...

This is somewhat related to how things are, currently---> but as you correctly noted "humanity is far from perfect"... so why settle for a world that has too many problems?

[Baud]

Why are these two things mutually exclusive?

I think this is not an exclusive poll: there are check box, not radio buttons, this mean you can choose several options.

But I also agree with you and some other posters that this poll is not very well phrased...

[Gobligok]

It is a "leap-of-faith" to believe that we can accelerate the evolutionary path in our own backyard (Earth)...but a quite different ball to play with it in the yard of the Solar System

What does that even mean?

so why settle for a world that has too many problems?

I don't see where anyone suggested doing any such thing, never mind that "too many problems" is subject to a wide array of value judgments and interpretations. What exactly do you consider to be "too many problems," and what do you propose in lieu of solving them?

[John Jaksich]

I admit my phrasing of words is bad... so I apologize...

Otherwise, in a nutshell... I am saying that it might prove easier to affect change when one slows down to understand the situation at hand...individuals are not necessarily machines...they do possess intelligence and an ability to make choices.

IMHO---it is easier to attempt to alter our evolutionary path in a measured response...

[SolusLupus]

I think this is not an exclusive poll: there are check box, not radio buttons, this mean you can choose several options.

But I also agree with you and some other posters that this poll is not very well phrased...

I know that.

But you'are essentially saying that they aren't exclusive because I can say that

Humanity will transcend its animal instinct and venture into the Milky Way
AND
Humanity will not transcend its animal instinct and will ulitimately perish


Which are both exclusive things. If humanity will transcend its animal instinct, then they can't *not* transcend it. But yes, with better wording, I suppose that would help.

[agingjb]

"Humanity will transcend its animal instinct and will accept its extinction when that becomes inevitable"?

[Gobligok]

Otherwise, in a nutshell... I am saying that it might prove easier to affect change when one slows down to understand the situation at hand...individuals are not necessarily machines...they do possess intelligence and an ability to make choices.

What do you mean by "slows down to understand the situation at hand?" What situation? Is someone moving too fast to understand it?

IMHO---it is easier to attempt to alter our evolutionary path in a measured response...

I still have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. Can you provide an example of such a response?

IMHO, whatever you're proposing here looks like a lot of word salad without really conveying anything meaningful.

[John Jaksich]

What do you mean by "slows down to understand the situation at hand?" What situation? Is someone moving too fast to understand it?



I still have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. Can you provide an example of such a response?

IMHO, whatever you're proposing here looks like a lot of word salad without really conveying anything meaningful.

Let me ask you a question...have you ever tried understanding a "person" by trying to deal with them like an object ---rather than as a actual, living breathing person...

if you have, then --you might have some inclination of what I am trying to explain to you.

[caveman1917]

Humanity will not transcend its animal instinct, will venture into the milky way and will ultimately perish.

The question is, since evolution is constantly working, how long can you keep calling something constantly changing "humanity"?

Suppose we send a group of people to another galaxy, they settle and a group comes back. By the time they return divergent evolution will make the two almost incomparable. Are they both still subsets of 'humanity'? They would even very likely be classified as totally different species by some hypothetical alien biologist.

Also i believe our 'animal instinct' is a necessary factor for evolution. It's the juxtaposition of different groups/individuals/nations... trying to dominate reproductive resources which puts the ingredient of selective pressure on the table.

Violence can only be overcome with more powerful violence. The example you give about some violent person being incarcerated is just that. He merely loses the struggle to dominate to the guy who incarcerates him. The latter has a better strategy for domination, nothing more.

[John Jaksich]

Humanity will not transcend its animal instinct, will venture into the milky way and will ultimately perish.

The question is, since evolution is constantly working, how long can you keep calling something constantly changing "humanity"?

Suppose we send a group of people to another galaxy, they settle and a group comes back. By the time they return divergent evolution will make the two almost incomparable. Are they both still subsets of 'humanity'? They would even very likely be classified as totally different species by some hypothetical alien biologist.

Also i believe our 'animal instinct' is a necessary factor for evolution. It's the juxtaposition of different groups/individuals/nations... trying to dominate reproductive resources which puts the ingredient of selective pressure on the table.

Violence can only be overcome with more powerful violence. The example you give about some violent person being incarcerated is just that. He merely loses the struggle to dominate to the guy who incarcerates him. The latter has a better strategy for domination, nothing more.

I actually like your lines of argumentation...very good and tight...but the only thing that I (personally) don't have the stomach for is the inclination to overcome violence with violence. To be sure...humanity currently struggles with its violent tendencies through incarceration, punishment and as well as in some instances heavy doses of medication (in extreme cases...that is).

We certainly possess choices in our daily lives as to how we want to conduct them:

Biologically, we have an opportunity to take the bull by the proverbial horns in our current attempts to understand the connections between our genes and our living conditions --or environment, if you will.

It is possible to medically alter our destinies-as we would normally do daily in a routine visit to get an anti-biotic for pneumonia...we alter an otherwise negative outcome of the possible fatality...we are presented with a choice of self-preservation or suffering. If we choose suffering, then we also choose a form of self-violence. IMO -- violence and self-preservation are mutually exclusive--a matter of choice.

caveman1917 wrote:
"Also i believe our 'animal instinct' is a necessary factor for evolution. It's the juxtaposition of different groups/individuals/nations... trying to dominate reproductive resources which puts the ingredient of selective pressure on the table.
"

I agree with your point here ---but why settle for "selective pressure" ---when we possess an ability to productively cooperate amongst ourselves and other nations --- ( I will admit that it sounds politically incorrect but...)-- in the long run it proves to be ineffective not to do so otherwise.

Admittedly, "selective pressure" is the current norm and will not change as long as there is a collective sense that violence can only be overcome with violence...

[Gobligok]

Let me ask you a question...have you ever tried understanding a "person" by trying to deal with them like an object ---rather than as a actual, living breathing person...

Can you provide an example of dealing with a person "like an object?"

if you have, then --you might have some inclination of what I am trying to explain to you.

Actually, no, I don't, and that's a poor substitute for actually explaining your idea when even you yourself admit to poor choices of language. From where I stand, your nebulous attempts to clarify haven't improved the situation.

we are presented with a choice of self-preservation or suffering.

False dichotomy. Sometimes self-preservation prolongs suffering or constitutes suffering unto itself due to the circumstances involved. In any case, yes, the choice to survive is very animal-like.

IMO -- violence and self-preservation are mutually exclusive

On the contrary, an organism that lacks the will or ability to defend itself when the need arises is far less likely to survive.

when we possess an ability to productively cooperate amongst ourselves and other nations

Cooperation is an evolved trait, due to "selective pressure."

as there is a collective sense that violence can only be overcome with violence...

Not "only," but it is certainly effective in some situations and likely always will be.

[John Jaksich]

Dear Gobligok,

IMO your questions are off-base and if you can report it to the moderators...if you like...

[Gobligok]

Dear Gobligok,

IMO your questions are off-base

Dear jaksichj,

In what way are my questions "off-base?" I readily admit to having no clue what your point is in this thread. I have criticized and asked questions in hopes of remedying the situation, but your answers have been even more vague and evasive than your initial post.

and if you can report it to the moderators...if you like...

Report my own posts or yours? Why?

[IsaacKuo]

Humanity will not transcend its animal instinct, will venture into the milky way and will ultimately perish.

By what mechanism will a humanity which has ventured into the Milky Way ultimately perish? The heat death of the universe in some 10¹⁰⁰ years?

Personally, I think if we get that far then the most likely cause for the extinction of the human race is that we're purposefully exterminated by others. Without such a genocidally malevolent intent, interstellar capable humans could run away into intergalactic space--living out a somewhat limited existence on gravitational potential energy and intergalactic photons for some 10⁴⁰ years.

The question is, since evolution is constantly working, how long can you keep calling something constantly changing "humanity"?

Suppose we send a group of people to another galaxy, they settle and a group comes back. By the time they return divergent evolution will make the two almost incomparable.

This assumes evolution will continue to function. It's possible that we are actually in the last stages of human evolution, as functional immortality may make further changes to our genetic code unnecessary.

Depending on how things turn out, the future of the human race might be in the form of a single specific person and his/her clones. I, for one, welcome our new Rimmer overlords.

[caveman1917]

By what mechanism will a humanity which has ventured into the Milky Way ultimately perish? The heat death of the universe in some 10¹⁰⁰ years?

I meant humanity in its current form will perish. Also we might kill off ourselves for example. Somewhat like mutually assured destruction on an interplanetary scale, one planet pushes the button and off we all go.

This assumes evolution will continue to function. It's possible that we are actually in the last stages of human evolution, as functional immortality may make further changes to our genetic code unnecessary.

Depending on how things turn out, the future of the human race might be in the form of a single specific person and his/her clones. I, for one, welcome our new Rimmer overlords.

Any cloning process will induce some (small) mutations which will add up over time. Any functional immortality will need to rely on at least some subset of a total cloning process, grow a new heart or whatever, you'll need to replace parts. So evolution will continue to function.

[IsaacKuo]

I meant humanity in its current form will perish.

I could see that, but to me evolving into something new is not the same as "perishing".

Also we might kill off ourselves for example. Somewhat like mutually assured destruction on an interplanetary scale, one planet pushes the button and off we all go.

My guess is that if we go interplanetary, then we will have mastered the technology of CELSS habitats. As such, I don't think traditional WMDs will cause complete mutual destruction. Someone will be hiding in a bunker deep enough or run away fast enough.

However, I do see that mass produced "killer robots" with self sustaining factory replication could be an "unconventional" WMD. I could see these being used as a weapon of war; they would incidentally become our designed "second generation" successors.

The question is--will our robot successors kill off humanity entirely, or will they be programmed to lovingly preserve and protect (some) humans? Even if they are designed as a weapon of war, they would presumably be designed to protect or at least not attack the designer's faction.

Of course...if both factions design killer robots which are more effective at hunting down and killing the enemy than they are at protecting the friendlies...oops...

Any cloning process will induce some (small) mutations which will add up over time. Any functional immortality will need to rely on at least some subset of a total cloning process, grow a new heart or whatever, you'll need to replace parts. So evolution will continue to function.

These mutations could be actively eliminated by only cloning from pristine sources.

For example, you could store the correct genetic code in digital form, using redundancy and error detection algorithms to preserve that data forever (well, until the heat death of the universe). Then, whenever you set up a cloning batch you take a sample to test against the digital copy. If there's any mutation, the batch is discarded. If there's no mutation, then the batch is considered "good" and you cook up more source stock from it.

There is, of course, a chance that some of the newly cloned cells have mutations. I'm assuming that the testing process is destructive and relatively expensive, so some mutated cells will make it through the screens. However, as long as the testing process is used, the mutation will not propogate beyond a generation.

This all assumes, of course, that the Rimmerworld civilization is so obsessed with "racial purity" that only perfect clones are acceptable.

[caveman1917]

My guess is that if we go interplanetary, then we will have mastered the technology of CELSS habitats. As such, I don't think traditional WMDs will cause complete mutual destruction. Someone will be hiding in a bunker deep enough or run away fast enough.

Maybe a dumb question, but what are CELSS habitats?
Assuming they are some fancy very high technological feat, why presume that while habitat technology approaches this, WMD technology will stand still? If you look at the whole of military history you'll see that as defenses are improved, so are attack methods against that and so on ad infinitum. Why assume this dynamic will suddenly stop? This is also seen in the predator-prey evolution btw.

Now even if some minor groups hide in bunkers, will they be enough to constitute a base for sustaining humanity? Suppose we have a world nuclear holocaust right now, i'm sure some will survive. But it'll be a long time before we'd be back at where we are now, if ever.

However, I do see that mass produced "killer robots" with self sustaining factory replication could be an "unconventional" WMD.

The question is--will our robot successors kill off humanity entirely, or will they be programmed to lovingly preserve and protect (some) humans? Even if they are designed as a weapon of war, they would presumably be designed to protect or at least not attack the designer's faction.

Do you mean by self sustaining factory replication that they will replicate themselves, or at least some sort of automatic "base command" which churns out these robots? And could possibly create new identical base commands?

In that case this reminds me a lot about the von-neumann probes, only with teeth :-)

But the same objections apply here too. Suppose you send these out, programmed not to harm the designer's faction. However as these replicate, some mutations will go unrecognized, no matter how good the testing procedure. But this applies also to the testing 'code' itself. It will evolve, and no part of it is exempt from that. Even if we send out the most peace-programmed ones, after a couple of thousand generations i would rather not think about what could come back. There's no escape there.

For example, you could store the correct genetic code in digital form, using redundancy and error detection algorithms to preserve that data forever (well, until the heat death of the universe). Then, whenever you set up a cloning batch you take a sample to test against the digital copy. If there's any mutation, the batch is discarded. If there's no mutation, then the batch is considered "good" and you cook up more source stock from it.

There is, of course, a chance that some of the newly cloned cells have mutations. I'm assuming that the testing process is destructive and relatively expensive, so some mutated cells will make it through the screens. However, as long as the testing process is used, the mutation will not propogate beyond a generation.

This all assumes, of course, that the Rimmerworld civilization is so obsessed with "racial purity" that only perfect clones are acceptable.

So it would be something akin to an ant colony. Where your cloning factory is the queen, and the clones would be the worker ants. In that case yes, evolution doesn't apply, just as it doesn't apply inside a (simplified) ant colony. Evolution only works through the reproductive elements of the species/system/... In this case the queen, or the clone factory, which could be considered like a star trek replicator in functional sense.
The problem starts when you start replicating the replicators themselves (breeding new queens).

Now one could make the testing conditions external to the replication process, and really make sure that by copying the testing code, every bit is in the right place. By focusing reproduction on only a single element one can circumvent evolution, that's true. But even then you'll have to be very carefull not to again run into problems when you need to replace parts of this replicator.

On the other hand, this would mean that the ability to withstand changing environmental conditions within the species would be 'downgraded' to the indivdual level. Or in other words, what makes a clone perfect? This is always relative to the environment. What could be called a perfect clone in one setting, might be a mediocre or even useless clone in another. And the setting always changes. And in this case, a flaw in one is a flaw in all.

I guess there's a small chance this could be pulled off, but is the resulting system still what we could call 'humanity'?

EDIT typo's and some minor additions

[IsaacKuo]

Maybe a dumb question, but what are CELSS habitats?

Closed Environment Life Support System habitats. They are able to sustain life without outside input of resources.

Assuming they are some fancy very high technological feat,

They aren't fancy technology, but they do require time and experience to perfect. The simplest sort of CELSS would be one with humans and some sort of food crop, like soybean plants. The plants absorb carbon dioxide, generate oxygen and food, as well as recycle waste and water.

The basic principle is simple, but perfecting the implementation takes time.

why presume that while habitat technology approaches this, WMD technology will stand still?

I don't assume it. But I've spent a lot of time pondering the sort of weapon systems suitable for interplanetary and interstellar warfare, and there aren't WMDs suitable for destruction on an interplanetary scale. It's just too ridiculously inefficient given the vast amounts of empty space between planets...it's too much more efficient to use multiple planet-killing WMDs which are individually aimed.

And WMDs just plain get less efficient when we're talking space habitats. While a planet might have a population of billions or trillions all conveniently huddled in one place, space habitats with artificial gravity are likely limited to only a few kilometers in diameter. So, you'd likely end up with billions of small habitats with populations only in the thousands.

Since there's so much empty space between the habitats, it simply isn't very efficient to try and "nuke" the entire region. More likely, even a planet-killing WMD would only take out one space habitat.

Do you mean by self sustaining factory replication that they will replicate themselves, or at least some sort of automatic "base command" which churns out these robots? And could possibly create new identical base commands?

In that case this reminds me a lot about the von-neumann probes, only with teeth :-)

Something like Von Neumann probes, but most of the units aren't self replicating. Instead, production of the killer robots is done in centralized factories by the "queens".

But the same objections apply here too. Suppose you send these out, programmed not to harm the designer's faction. However as these replicate, some mutations will go unrecognized, no matter how good the testing procedure. But this applies also to the testing 'code' itself. It will evolve, and no part of it is exempt from that.

No, it's straightforward to provide sufficient redundancy and error checking so that no mutations will propogate.

For example, your queen units don't have just one CPU system. Instead, it may have fifty CPU systems, each redundantly running the same code. If one of the CPU systems goes out of sync with the others, then it is destroyed. If the number of remaining CPU units falls below, say, ten, then the queen self destructs.

In order for a mutation to propogate, it would have to simultaneously take place on ten different CPU units at the same place at the same time...practically impossible on the time scale of the age of the universe.

Or in other words, what makes a clone perfect? This is always relative to the environment.

In this example, a "perfect" clone is a clone who has the exact same DNA as the original. Who decided on this definition of "perfect"? The egotistical original who created this clone society.

I guess there's a small chance this could be pulled off, but is the resulting system still what we could call 'humanity'?

If some egotistical person pulls it off, killing off the rest of the humanity in his/her fanatic pursuit of racial perfection...

Well, I said it might be the "future of humanity". Whether or not you choose to call it "humanity" is up to you.

[caveman1917]

And WMDs just plain get less efficient when we're talking space habitats. While a planet might have a population of billions or trillions all conveniently huddled in one place, space habitats with artificial gravity are likely limited to only a few kilometers in diameter. So, you'd likely end up with billions of small habitats with populations only in the thousands.

But a space habitat only a few kilometers in diameter would be relatively easy to destroy. Consider the ratio of the resources needed for the weapon to destroy a habitat to the resources for creating that habitat. If this ratio is sufficiently small (which would seem likely), one can be fairly certain that any faction could have plenty of those weapons to destroy the habitats of another faction.

Since there's so much empty space between the habitats, it simply isn't very efficient to try and "nuke" the entire region. More likely, even a planet-killing WMD would only take out one space habitat.

No, more like one (or two) missile aimed at each habitat.

No, it's straightforward to provide sufficient redundancy and error checking so that no mutations will propogate.

For example, your queen units don't have just one CPU system. Instead, it may have fifty CPU systems, each redundantly running the same code. If one of the CPU systems goes out of sync with the others, then it is destroyed. If the number of remaining CPU units falls below, say, ten, then the queen self destructs.

In order for a mutation to propogate, it would have to simultaneously take place on ten different CPU units at the same place at the same time...practically impossible on the time scale of the age of the universe.

If the decision to self destruct in this case runs on a single 'master' CPU, the problems would return.
If it is run on every CPU, they are networked to count themselves. However one could mutate to give out the signal as if it were 10 CPU's, over time becoming the sole 'master' CPU, and problems return. Highly unlikely, but give enough monkeys with typewriters enough time...

[IsaacKuo]

But a space habitat only a few kilometers in diameter would be relatively easy to destroy.

Perhaps so, but your argument was that WMDs would be more powerful, rather than more numerous.

In order to get past vague generalities, we really need to look at what form future WMDs might take. What is the next step up from the nuke? Here are a couple possibilities:

1) Bio-weapon. A genetically engineered super-virus could target wheat, corn, and rice. The resulting famine wouldn't kill absolutely everybody, but the few who are left could be more easily mopped up by other means.

2) Killer asteroid. If you want a global level WMD, one straightforward possibility is to deflect an asteroid to hit the trailing side of the Moon. By hitting the Moon rather than the Earth directly, you end up amplifying the destructiveness on Earth by about 10x. The amount of mass ejected from the lunar crater is about 10x the mass of the impactor, and this ejecta will still hit Earth at about escape velocity due to the altitude of the Moon.

In both of these examples, the WMD is certainly more powerful than today's nukes, but the latter would require a lot more resources than today's nukes. Neither of these weapons would be as much of a threat against space colonies.

My main point being--you need to get into specific weapons and defenses rather than vague generalizations.

Consider the ratio of the resources needed for the weapon to destroy a habitat to the resources for creating that habitat. If this ratio is sufficiently small (which would seem likely), one can be fairly certain that any faction could have plenty of those weapons to destroy the habitats of another faction.

It's actually not so easy for a weapon to destroy a space habitat, because it needs to reach the space habitat. We're used to the idea of nuclear MAD because we're crowded together on this small Earth. As such, it takes only minutes for an ICBM to reach its target. And there's not much the target can do about this.

But in interplanetary space, it takes many months to even get into firing position and it takes months for missiles to reach their targets. That's a lot of time for the targets to mount some sort of defense. In particular, they can launch cheap small short range defense missiles to intercept the incoming missiles. Offensive missiles are more expensive than defensive missiles due to the much greater delta-v and payload requirements.

There's also the possibility of particle beam and laser defenses. Particle beams may be available for use in magbeam propulsion systems; laser beams may be available for use in laser thermal propulsion systems. Either of these can be used to shoot down incoming missiles.

No, more like one (or two) missile aimed at each habitat.

One or two won't be enough. Depending on the details involved, it might take thousands of missiles per habitat to punch through the defenses.

If the decision to self destruct in this case runs on a single 'master' CPU, the problems would return.
If it is run on every CPU, they are networked to count themselves. However one could mutate to give out the signal as if it were 10 CPU's, over time becoming the sole 'master' CPU, and problems return. Highly unlikely, but give enough monkeys with typewriters enough time...

This is an impossible scenario. The CPUs can be networked together using point-to-point wiring, rather than a shared bus. It would be impossible for one CPU to pretend to be another CPU, because it's not connected using the same network lines.

And what if they were using a shared bus? It's still impossible. Suppose CPU Five mutates and sends out false signals pretending to be CPU Six. Who is that going to fool? CPU Six will still be sending out its own signals, and these double signals will immediately trip the failsafe self destruct. Any of the CPUs has the capability to self destruct the entire CPU cluster.

Of course, it's possible to make such signal faking impossible anyway, via public key encryption.

[Argos]

Why can't we keep our animal instinct and survive?

In my opinion, the combination of destructive tech and a reptilian brain is unstable. We must overcome our animal instincts if we want to survive and colonize the galaxy.

The good news is that I see evidences that we are making progress. Right now the trend is towards pacification of aggressiveness and eventual galaxy colonization.

[caveman1917]

Perhaps so, but your argument was that WMDs would be more powerful, rather than more numerous.

Technically my argument was that offensive technology would keep at pace with defensive technology. It might even be a 'smarter' WMD instead of a more powerful one for that matter. Or an increase in production efficiency giving more numerous offensive weapons for the same resources than defensive weapons.

In order to get past vague generalities, we really need to look at what form future WMDs might take. What is the next step up from the nuke?

Yes we need to get more specific. But before we can do that, we need to be more specific about what we are actually destroying. We can only develop a strategy for destruction if we know exactly what it is we're trying to bring down. For example, could these habitats by themselves serve as an industrial base for a civilization? Or are they more akin to the nuclear subs we send out today, they can survive on their own for essentially forever, but nuke the earth and the subs can't serve as a base, even though they might survive. That would make them an irrelevant target strategically.

Here are a couple possibilities:

1) Bio-weapon. A genetically engineered super-virus could target wheat, corn, and rice. The resulting famine wouldn't kill absolutely everybody, but the few who are left could be more easily mopped up by other means.

2) Killer asteroid. If you want a global level WMD, one straightforward possibility is to deflect an asteroid to hit the trailing side of the Moon. By hitting the Moon rather than the Earth directly, you end up amplifying the destructiveness on Earth by about 10x. The amount of mass ejected from the lunar crater is about 10x the mass of the impactor, and this ejecta will still hit Earth at about escape velocity due to the altitude of the Moon.

Are you sure about this latter point? It seems to me that an asteroid which has been falling into the sun's gravitational well (from say at least the main belt), would have a velocity at least 3 times (hence kinetic energy at least 9x) higher than something only falling from the distance of the moon (into earth's gravitational field).

In both of these examples, the WMD is certainly more powerful than today's nukes, but the latter would require a lot more resources than today's nukes. Neither of these weapons would be as much of a threat against space colonies.

But it may require a lot less resources than constructing a space habitat. Fundamentally just attach some rocket to an asteroid/comet and keep applying some relatively small force at the correct time. The sun's gravitation will do the rest.

It's actually not so easy for a weapon to destroy a space habitat, because it needs to reach the space habitat. We're used to the idea of nuclear MAD because we're crowded together on this small Earth. As such, it takes only minutes for an ICBM to reach its target. And there's not much the target can do about this.

But in interplanetary space, it takes many months to even get into firing position and it takes months for missiles to reach their targets. That's a lot of time for the targets to mount some sort of defense. In particular, they can launch cheap small short range defense missiles to intercept the incoming missiles. Offensive missiles are more expensive than defensive missiles due to the much greater delta-v and payload requirements.

Yes, that's why we also need to be specific about this spacefaring civilization to know wether it is even necessary to target the habitats themselves.

One or two won't be enough. Depending on the details involved, it might take thousands of missiles per habitat to punch through the defenses.

Or one really stealthy one.

This is an impossible scenario. The CPUs can be networked together using point-to-point wiring, rather than a shared bus. It would be impossible for one CPU to pretend to be another CPU, because it's not connected using the same network lines.

And what if they were using a shared bus? It's still impossible. Suppose CPU Five mutates and sends out false signals pretending to be CPU Six. Who is that going to fool? CPU Six will still be sending out its own signals, and these double signals will immediately trip the failsafe self destruct. Any of the CPUs has the capability to self destruct the entire CPU cluster.

Of course, it's possible to make such signal faking impossible anyway, via public key encryption.

Yes you are right.