Geeks seem to have this funny blindspot when it comes to premature optimization if the premature optimization is something that would make for a good sci-fi novel.
I'm not proposing we optimize right now for this eventuality. I'm pointing out that the "PR gimmick" is something that actually has to happen at some point. That's just one obvious point at which it has to happen.
Your somewhat glib response reminds me this:
But I should remember, Krauss said, that the long run is a very long time. He told me about a meeting he attended at the Vatican a few years back on the future of the universe: "There were about 15 people, theologians, a few cosmologists, some biologists. The idea was to find common ground, but after three days it was clear that we had nothing to say to one another. When theologians talk about the 'long term,' raising questions about resurrection and such, they're really thinking about the short term. We weren't even on the same plane. When you talk about 10^50 years, the theologians' eyes glaze over.
If you would want to experience another world, you wouldn't want to have your sensors/effectors too far away from your brain. And it doesn't matter if you would be flesh or silicon.
Even planets in our solar system are already too far for remote interaction.
If, as I originally posited, humans were to evolve into in silico entities, then human beings (= naked apes) would not exist, would they (other than, perhaps, as specimens on display in zoos)?
What I meant by in silico was existence in computer hardware. Sending 100 lbs of computer+powersupply there means being there, without being spread telepresently over large distances.
Yes, but I only hear of this particular amusing scenario in the context of "Why you should be forced to give your money to support a government agency which I approve of".
We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. Evolution isn't linear, and considering humans are the only species (that humans are aware of) which can manipulate fire, build non-trivial structures with straight lines, communicate with symbols, work levers independently, carve stone, create metal tools, vary sonic pitch extra-physically, design automated processes, and travel beyond the stratosphere, there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe. (Please correct me if I overestimated our uniqueness on any of the above.)
Just because web source code looked a lot different fifteen years ago doesn't mean it'll change considerably fifteen years from now. Mutation can be beneficial, but it can also carry the unfortunate cost of breaking compatibility.
No. [edit: Upon further reflection, I may have misunderstood you. If you simply mean that humans and bacteria have a lot of DNA in common, then I of course agree.]
> there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe.
So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem? Unlikely. Even if we assume that humanity is somehow optimal right now, will this be true in even 100,000 years? A global temperature change of a few degrees or a change in the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere could render us utterly non-optimal.
By way of example, consider that 500 million years ago there was considerably more oxygen in the atmosphere than now. This meant that insects could grow much larger than they are today withought needing to invest resources in lungs to support their body mass (insects lack specialized circulatory organs, generally). But fast forward today and giant insects are a manifestly suboptimal solution. I'm personnally grateful.
> So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem?
It's not that we're physically optimal, but that we're good enough to be able to manipulate heat to an extent that makes metallurgy possible, which allows us to non-trivially optimize our environment to ourselves.
Based on the fact that we haven't seen any aliens, and assuming that we're not the first intelligent species in the universe for roughly the same reason I assume I'm not the first person to have some bright idea for a web app, I'm going to guess no, or at least that it's not cost effective. Otherwise we'd probably have seen von Neumann probes or something like that by now (or more likely, we wouldn't be here).
We're not really quite up to the task of "allowing" this or that to evolve just yet. (See drug-resistant strains of bacteria, the annual flu-shot crapshoot, etc)
