[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> To Kelly:
> >> Using this analogy, won't the futere bring us a complete automatic
> >> where no one needs to work?
> >In theory it could, but historically we use most of the extra time to get
> >extra stuff out of life.
> Yes, but we will reach a time when the extra stuff isn't needed for say
> century living, so that means it isn't necessary to work. Nowadays, we
> live a 20th century lifestyle by almost doing nothing. Machines would do
> almost all the work for us, much less were needed to keep those machines
> working. Looking to earlier remarks, I'm almost certain that you don't
> to this...
I don't agree that most people would agree to much lower standards of living
for lower work loads. Now people could easily live the life of people 50-100
years ago with much less work, but that would mean little to no medicine, no
T.V., computer, car, stereo, electricity, indoor plumbing, insulated draft
free homes, etc... Homes like that are now illegal in the U.S., since they
are considered uninhabitable. No doubt our current homes and lifestyle will
seem equally squalid and unacceptable to our desendants. So they will work
longer to live better. Probably not as long as we do now, and they'ld demand
better jobs and treatment; but they would still work. I have great faith in
human greed and desire for a better life for themselves, their families, and
others they like.
> By the way, do you think that human AI can be rivalled by "computers"
> say 300 years? (Just to get some idea of your ideas)
Pretty much what I was pitch in DataNet War. We can now build computers with
complexity approching the human brain (computers with E 12 bytes of ram have
been built, I don't think the human brains much more than that.), so if we
can over come a few serious stumpliing blocks we could get human, or more
than human intelegence A.I.s fairls quickly. 10 -30 years wouldn't surprize
me that much (though I'ld be reluctant to base our starship design on that),
certainly within the next century. Given that artificial intelegence would
have far fewer limits to its development than organic intelegence, they could
progress fairly rapidly. Probably being limited by fundamental limits in
avalible information. (You can be a super genius, but if you don't know much
more than others, you won't effectivly be much smarter.)
> >But they don't have enough people or equipment to do so. So I doubt our
> >little (?) ship would manage it.
> Don't they, if the soldiers wouldn't train all day couldn't they replace
> army gear in that time?
Only if they built then factories and trained them how to build them.
> >>A lot of computers are not being replaced because they completely don't
> >> any more but just because the competion has faster ones. ----
> >And because the cost of maintaining the old ones are more the the cost of
> >buying the new one.
> Yes, that is what I meant when I wrote that a lot of time is spend on R&D,
> if you would maintain what you have, the computers would become cheaper and
> cheaper because only the maintenance and rebuild cost would have to be
> These days a lot of money is paid for the development. Of course this
> doesn't take in account the time that can be spared after the new products
> can be used.
> So if we go one developing like today's society, one day the amount of
> spare(d) time will be more than the time used for R&D :)
Computers are becoming cheaper and cheaper by a factor of 100 each decade.
> >> Isn't it possible to make objects with unmixed materials, so that the
> >> recycle-ability is enlarged much more, long enough to last the lives of
> >> crew.
> >Only if the object can functionwith the simplified subset of materials.
> > Obviously cutting edge or high performance equipment (superconductors,
> >reentry heat shields, aircraft or high streangth alloys, fusion reactors,
> >computer circuts, life support gear, medical equipment, drugs, etc...)
> >get by with such lowgrade materials. So those systems would die as soon
> >they ran out of spare parts.
> Indeed, some materials need to be refined to a high degree, but not all.
> Probably these materials are needed in small amounts, unless you want
> solar-collectors which need high grade silicon in large quantities.
> So maybe for a small amount of materials we can allow ourselves small
> refining machinery. Now indeed the question stays open, how many highgrade
> materials do we need? I've to think about that.
> By the way, do we need reentry heat shields, that is only needed if you
> don't have enough energy to brake yourself.
Or want to save power in decent. We might as well use it, its one of the few
easy tricks we have to save ship power.
> >Come to think of it even the rest might not make sence. After all,
> >metals wear out and corred FAR faster than alloys. So the alloyed version
> >would outlive several recycled generations of the simpler primal metal
> Do we need alloyed metal or can we find a substitude, look at the cars that
> have a body of plastics instead of metal. OK their inner structure is still
> of steel, but it saves a lot. But is it difficult to recycle steel easely?
Its pretty easy to recycle steel, though the quality goes down each cycle.
Plastics varry some are easy, some impossible.
In general high streagth, corresion resistence, and general durability would
require alloys or composites (give or take), which wouldn't recycle very
> If only we had replicators and the energy they needed.