Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:58:23 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Technology

Just another thing we have to think about: what technologies should we 
assume? We have already assumed FTL and some mentions have been done 
about antigravity. I'm right now writing up a little text (from the 
perspective of a pop-scientist in the era of the game) about how these 
work. Here are some ideas:

The basis for everything is the quantum vacuum fluctuations. It turns out 
that beneath the Planck scale reality is self-organizing, a bit like a 
huge "game of life" where matter, energy and spacetime are the result of 
interactions between "pre-geometry structures".

Under some circumstances, macroscopic energy can be pumped into this 
quantum mess (this is the reason the sun doesn't emit enough neutrinos) 
and influence it. Antigravity and FTL (which is essentially a very 
extreme antigravity field of a certain shape) work by creating 
pre-geometry patterns that form a gravitational field. In theory similar 
things could be done with all the other fields, but none of the 
civilizations in the vicinity have mastered this, since the forces are 
too complex on this level (gravity is the simplest and weakest force). 

Antigravity systems are possible but very energy-consuming, making them 
impractical except for some things (planet-orbit catapults?). FTL is 
essentially a hi-fi antigravity system used to warp spacetime even more, 
and thus require prodigious amounts of energy. Antigravity units can 
create monopole fields (everything is attracted to the unit), dipole 
fields (repels in one direction and attracts in the other, the basis of 
the FTL drive) or shear fields (repulsion along one axis, attraction 
along the other). Higher order fields are possible, but too energy 
consuming to be of any interest outside the laboratory.

One interesting technology is the creation of gravity waves. A gravity
wave beam can penetrate anything, and induces shear stresses perpendicular
to its direction. These are usually too weak to do any damage unless the
beam is very strong or attuned to a resonance frequency. Gravity wave
beams can however disrupt the hyperdrive fields of a ship, destroying it
or forcing it into sublight speed. 

Comments? What about other technologies?


From: "Tony L. Hayes" <tlh@epsilon.com>
Subject: Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 13:33:19 -0500 (EST)

Well, here are a few things that I would like to see:

1) Anti-gravity.  It should be relatively cheap and portable.  As a
corollary, we should also have, artificial gravity, inertial damping
fields, tractor/pressor beams.  All of these should function on similar
technologies.

2) Robotics.  Robots should be easy and common.  They can run the full
gambit from stationary construction-bots to mobile robots that have
an appearence similar to the various races (ie Humanoid for humans).
How far we want to allow the appearence to go is optional but could
be as far as virtually indistinguishable from biological members of 
the species.  As for intelligence, I would shoot for about Star Wars
type.  The programs are very sophisticated with 'learning' code making
them appear very 'lifelike' in their behavior but not truely artifically
intelligent.  I also would envision robot ships that do basic exploration,
mining, routine cargo runs.

3) Computers.  Computers I see as very sophisticated perhaps even in
first generation AI (true intelligence).  Holographic and/or molecular
storage systems.  Machines built on high-temperature superconductors
and fibre optics.  I would imagine all interfaces would be a combination
of touch screen and natural language interface perhaps with a video
component to 'see' gesters and expressions.  Small 'home' computers
would also be quite advanced but, obviously, not as far as the state-
of-the-art systems.

4) Weapons.  Particle beam weapons, laser weapons, stunners, mini-rocket
launchers, as well as high-volume slug throwers.  Powered armor and 
combat robots would be common, I should think.

5) Power.  Non-polluting sources would be most common.  Solar where
available, geothermal otherwise with fusion filling in the rest.
Wind and water would serve as backup or auxillary sources in most
cases.

6) Transportation.  Personal transport will be via anti-grav vehicles
powered by small fusion reactors or advanced battery systems.  Wheeled
vehicles would become too expensive because of the cost for road
maintenance.  Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
for planets that have nearby moons.  In-system travel would be
common via mass transit systems with intersystem travel being somewhat
less common (perhaps like long distance international travel is today.
Sure a lot of people do it but most do not and the ones who do are usually
doing it for business).  I prefer lots of privately owned smaller crafts
of both intra- and interstellar capabilities but I'm not sure that is
possible given other parameters that have been discussed (cost of
FTL for example).

7) Medical.  I would say that artifical limbs and organs are common.  Most
'simple' illnesses are cured easily.  Some limited success with artifically
grown replacement organs (for the all natural you) perhaps cloned from the
host body for maximum compatibility.  Microsurgery is common place and
most surgery is done via computer/robot/surgeon combinations.  The surgeon
decides what to do and how to 'program' the computer/robot which actually
does the work thus reducing errors and minimizing contamination, etc.

Hmm...there's a couple of ideas for people to bash around.  I'm not
coming up with any more just now.  If I do, I'll send them out.


Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:21:21 +0100
From: Joerg Rhiemeier <rhiemeir@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Subject: Re: Technology

Tony Hayes wrote on Oct 10:
>1) Anti-gravity.  It should be relatively cheap and portable.  As a
>corollary, we should also have, artificial gravity, inertial damping
>fields, tractor/pressor beams.  All of these should function on similar
>technologies.

Artificial gravity, antigravity and reactionless spaceship engines all
boil down to the same thing (dipolar gravity-like field), and
according to Alcubierre, this same thing also gives us FTL!

I am not sure about inertial dampers and tractor/pressor beams, but
they might be possible through a more general version of this technology.

>2) Robotics.  Robots should be easy and common.  They can run the full
>gambit from stationary construction-bots to mobile robots that have
>an appearence similar to the various races (ie Humanoid for humans).

What about nanorobots?

>How far we want to allow the appearence to go is optional but could
>be as far as virtually indistinguishable from biological members of 
>the species.

Depends on the species' aesthetics, and on other factors.

>I would imagine all computer interfaces would be a combination
>of touch screen and natural language interface perhaps with a video
>component to 'see' gesters and expressions.  

User interface technology is always species-specific and not
interchangeable!

I assume that these machines are networked.  Each planet has its own
global high-speed network, and these networks might be interconnected
through tiny wormholes.  Starships, however, are not
wormhole-networked, and incommunicado during FTL, because wormholes
cannot be carried FTL (fatal interactions between wormhole and warp field!).

>4) Weapons.  Particle beam weapons, laser weapons, stunners, mini-rocket
>launchers, as well as high-volume slug throwers.  Powered armor and 
>combat robots would be common I should think.

Hmmm, I don't like force shields, and I think that beam weapons are not
efficient enough to be a vital rival to missiles and slug throwers.

>5) Power.  Non-polluting sources would be most common.  Solar where
>available, geothermal otherwise with fusion filling in the rest.
>Wind and water would serve as backup or auxillary sources in most
>cases.

Yes.  Many species might have started with polluting sources, but they have
later either ruined their ecosystem and died out, or they have switched to
non-polluting sources.  Running an industrial or even an interstellar society
on oil, coal and uranium is an inactionist's pipe dream.

>6) Transportation.  Personal transport will be via anti-grav vehicles
>powered by small fusion reactors or advanced battery systems.  Wheeled
>vehicles would become too expensive because of the cost for road
>maintenance.

The question is how energy-efficient these anti-grav vehicles are.
A wheeled car needs far less energy because it need not sustain flight.
This probably cancels out the costs for road maintenance, unless
energy is *really* cheap.  And note that you need some kinds of road
anyway, be it just for pedestrians.  Personal anti-grav vehicles
are probably luxury rather than standard issue.

>	Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
>flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
>for planets that have nearby moons.

Such vehicles are quite expensive, and beyond the needs of many people.
Not everyone will own such a craft!

And furthermore, only individualistic societies will sport personal
vehicles.  If the species has a hive mind, the term `personal' makes
no sense at all!

>I prefer lots of privately owned smaller crafts
>of both intra- and interstellar capabilities but I'm not sure that is
>possible given other parameters that have been discussed (cost of
>FTL for example).

I think FTL starships are very expensive, and only *very* few
individuals may afford even the smallest one!

>7) Medical.  I would say that artifical limbs and organs are common.  Most
>'simple' illnesses are cured easily.  Some limited success with artifically
>grown replacement organs (for the all natural you) perhaps cloned from the
>host body for maximum compatibility.  Microsurgery is common place and
>most surgery is done via computer/robot/surgeon combinations.  The surgeon
>decides what to do and how to 'program' the computer/robot which actually
>does the work thus reducing errors and minimizing contamination, etc.

Remember that we have a multi-species society.  That means that each species
has its own physiology and anatomy, and therefore its own distinct medical
science, which is vastly different from that of other species.  Medical
advances of one species therefore *cannot* be transferred to any other;
even the best Hafaru doc cannot cure a Swimmer, for instance (except if
he has also studied Swimmer medicine, which is so different from Hafaru
medicine that it is to be regarded a completely different field of story).
Hence, the medical tech levels of different species might be wildly different,
as no species profits from the progress of other species.

>Hmm...there's a couple of ideas for people to bash around.  I'm not
>coming up with any more just now.  If I do, I'll send them out.

With each bit of technology, one must seek the answer to the question,
"Does it make sense *to the species in question*?"  Some technologies
which make perfect sense to us don't make sense to some other species.


From: "Tony L. Hayes" <tlh@epsilon.com>
Subject: Re: Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:42:51 -0500 (EST)

Joerg Rhiemeier writes ->
> Artificial gravity, antigravity and reactionless spaceship engines all
> boil down to the same thing (dipolar gravity-like field), and
> according to Alcubierre, this same thing also gives us FTL!

One view of gravity states that gravity is essentially the interaction
(perhaps exchange) of gravitions, therefore, artifical gravity would 
simply be a matter of generating the correct levels and types of
gravitons or anit-gravitons or blocking the gravitons from interacting
with the material of your craft.  Similarly, inertial dampers is a
term that is 'historical' and a misnomer.  Inertial dampers really
means to create an artificial gravity field that compensates for the
force applied by accelleration (or impact).  It doesn't actually 
alter inertia in any way.
 
> What about nanorobots?

They are not precluded.
 
> >How far we want to allow the appearence to go is optional but could
> >be as far as virtually indistinguishable from biological members of 
> >the species.
> 
> Depends on the species' aesthetics, and on other factors.

It depends more on whether we wish to postulate that the technology
to make lifelike (where lifelike means resembling the species
observing the construction) robots is possible and exists.
 
> >and fibre optics.  I would imagine all interfaces would be a combination
> >of touch screen and natural language interface perhaps with a video
> >component to 'see' gesters and expressions.  
> 
> User interface technology is always species-specific and not
> interchangeable!

I agree, but it is easier to successfully explain a concept in common
Human terms then to try to generalize.  If a species is blind and uses
smell, then the primary interfaces would be based on that, however,
since intelligence is generally equated with the ability to use tools,
a touch interface is highly likely in any species.  Further, natural
language implys the language native to the species, even if that language
has no spoken component.  Lastly, despite arguments to the contrary, I
believe any successful species will have sight as a primary sense.  True
this is a Human bias and I openly admit that but I still will maintain
that point of view.
 
> I assume that these machines are networked.  Each planet has its own
> global high-speed network, and these networks might be interconnected
> through tiny wormholes.  Starships, however, are not wormhole-networked,
> and incommunicado during FTL, because wormholes cannot be carried FTL
> (fatal interactions between wormhole and warp field!).

Planetary networks I agree with, maybe even system-wide, but I don't
know if I like FTL communications.  Sure it's possible _if_ you can
construct stable wormholes or some similar approach, but I'm kind of
partial to communications being equal to the speed of travel.  It's
a personal bias.
 
> >4) Weapons.  Particle beam weapons, laser weapons, stunners, mini-rocket
> >launchers, as well as high-volume slug throwers.  Powered armor and 
> >combat robots would be common I should think.
> 
> Hmmm, I don't like force shields, and I think that beam weapons are not
> efficient enough to be a vital rival to missiles and slug throwers.

I don't like force shields either - I think you are misunderstanding
Powered Armor.  This is armor that has robotic components to enhance
the strength and endurance of the wearer.

As for beam weapons, they have several key advantages:

1) Ammo is probably just a rechargable power pack or a microfusion
generator of some sort so you don't need to lug heavy missiles around
with you (ammo is quite heavy when you have to carry it day after day
after day).

2) Any projectile weapon that is not wire guided or self-guiding
(and possibly even then) will have differing firing characteristics
in different atmospheres and gravities.  Consequently, any sighting
system would be worthless until realigned.  Beam weapons are LOS.
As for atmosphere, they are already working on sheathed beams, basically
a beam within a beam.   The first beam 'blows' a hole in the atmosphere
and the second follows behind in the temporary vacuum.

3) The efficiency of beam and particle weapons is debateable.  There
is no reloading of ammo, there is no carrying of ammo, just recharge
the reusable power pack or add more hydrogen to the fusion generator
and you're set.  Lasers of today are fairly efficient already.
 
> The question is how energy-efficient these anti-grav vehicles are.
> A wheeled car needs far less energy because it need not sustain flight.
> This probably cancels out the costs for road maintenance, unless
> energy is *really* cheap.  And note that you need some kinds of road
> anyway, and be it just for pedestrians.  Personal anti-grav vehicles
> are probably luxury rather than standard issue.

I am assuming cheap, portable energy.  I also am assuming that anti-grav
is not that difficult/energy consuming by this point.  Roads for pedestrians?
You mean sidewalks?  How may potholes have you seen in a sidewalk?  How
often do you see construction work on a sidewalk (not counting when they're
digging down to the pipes below)?  Sidewalk maintenance is not relavent
compared to road maintenance.  Also, I don't see sidewalks running from
LA to Boston - who'd walk that far?  I don't think the need for sidewalks
would save wheeled vehicles - assuming that energy and anti-grav is
cheap and portable.
 
> >	Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
> >flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
> >for planets that have nearby moons.
> 
> Such vehicles are quite expensive, and beyond the needs of many people.
> Not everyone will own such a craft!

I agree.  I said _may be_.  Expense certainly will be a factor but
how hard would it be to make a vehicle do all three.  You need only
one propulsion system, it needs to be airtight anyway if your are
going to any altitude, and depending on construction techniques and 
materials, pressure may not be a problem either.
 
> And furthermore, only individualistic societies will sport personal
> vehicles.  If the species has a hive mind, the term `personal' makes
> no sense at all!

Granted.  Personal vehicles means what would theoretically available
to a normal working joe.  If he don't want it he don't _have_ to buy
it.
 
> >I prefer lots of privately owned smaller crafts
> >of both intra- and interstellar capabilities but I'm not sure that is
> >possible given other parameters that have been discussed (cost of
> >FTL for example).
> 
> I think FTL starships are very expensive, and only *very* few
> individuals may afford even the smallest one!

I know and I don't like that premise.

> Remember that we have a multi-species society.  That means that each species
> has its own physiology and anatomy, and therefore its own distinct medical
> science, which is vastly different from that of other species.  Medical
> advances of one species therefore *cannot* be transferred to any other;
> even the best Hafaru doc cannot cure a Swimmer, for instance (except if
> he has also studied Swimmer medicine, which is so different from Hafaru
> medicine that it is to be regarded a completely different field of story).
> Hence, the medical tech levels of different species might be wildly different,
> as no species profits from the progress of other species.

I have to strongly disagree here.  Granted, medical knowlege of a Human
wouldn't help you treat any alien unless they are very closely related
(even animals get their own doctors after all <grin>).  However, computer
surgery should work on anyone with suitable mods to the programs and
equipment.  Further, it is likely that germs and viruses will effect
other species so technology on sterilization or viruses should be
usable if only as a basis to conduct research or to suggest new ideas.
I don't see the "vastly different" part.  Different yes, totally worthless
no.

Life, I think, will have much more in common then it will have
differences.  I think lots of techniques will be exchangable as will
lots of knowledge.  That still doesn't mean that a Human doc could
treat a Hafaru for example but that does mean that technology and
advancements of one race will be of value to most if not all other
races.
 
> With each bit of technology, one must seek the answer to the question,
> "Does it make sense *to the species in question*?"  Some technologies
> which make perfect sense to us don't make sense to some other species.

I agree to a degree.  Certainly, as you pointed out, a 'hive mind' will
have little need for true 'personal transportation', for example but
the technology that allows the construction of such a vehicle will
certainly be valuble.  The entire hive is not, after all, going to
go off to explore or to war or to whatever.  That would be stupid and
such a race would undoubtedly become extinct in short order.  Do be
careful not to confuse tools with technology.  A computer is a tool not
a technology.  The technology that allows us to build a computer and
program it would be valuable to any species even if they have a totally
different interface and goal in mind.  

I have listed representative tools under each catagory but you should
really be thinking of the technology behind the tool that is used to
build it.  The technology is very hard to put into words which is why,
I think, most games do exactly as I have done and show examples of
what can be done rather then try to list off all of the technologies
that go into the tool.

Certainly the examples I've given are Humanocentric but only because
it is easier to think in those terms and easy enough once we all
have the same picture in mind to extrapolate to non-human tools.

Again, just my $0.02.  


Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:01:26 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Technology

On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, Tony L. Hayes wrote:
> Well, here are a few things that I would like to see:
> 
> 1) Anti-gravity.  It should be relatively cheap and portable.  As a
> corollary, we should also have, artificial gravity, inertial damping
> fields, tractor/pressor beams.  All of these should function on similar
> technologies.

How cheap and portable do we want it? If it doesn't require immense
amounts of energy then a lot of interesting things become possible: 
gravitic buildings, antigravity-assisted launches, antigravity vehicles,
remote manipulation or even flying suits. This could have interesting
effects on architecture, daily life and technology for races that use it a
lot. My take is that antigravity is energy consuming, limiting its use to
larger structures (buildings, ships).

Do we want inertial damping? It would probably be hard to create a good 
inertial damper without bending the laws of physics further. What would 
be possible with this technology is artificial gravity fields that 
automatically adjust to accelerations, making the interior of a craft 
*almost* stable - the dampeners will not be able to handle large or 
unexpected disturbances (think of the bridge in Star Trek). 

Tractor/pressor beams would be possible with my dipole idea, but their
range would be very limited (they decay with the cube of the distance, and
there will be a pressor beam behind the tractor beam generator). Gravity
wave beams could become neat weapons, but I prefer to keep them less
deadly. 

Some races might use gravitic technology more than others. Some regard it
as too expensive to be useful, while others enjoy playing gravitic jokes
on each other (I have this vision of a Mother-Ikkadju enclave with
Escher-like jokes in the architecture). 

> 2) Robotics.  Robots should be easy and common.

This depends a lot on which race we discuss. I have already written that 
the Gools are heavily into robotics (its essentially an extension of 
their way of living anyway), but not all races use it equally. Humans 
might rely on it a lot, which could introduce an interesting twist: after 
the Battle of Earth most of the robot production facilities were 
completely destroyed (strategic targets), so the remaining robots are 
extremely valuable and are patched and repaired as much as possible.

Something I want to add to the Gools: they use robotic weapons (not unlike
today's "smart weapons" taken 500 years further). They release autonomous
devices that scurry away, attack the enemy (usually other devices), hide,
and generally behave unpredictably. Mines with small legs hide in the
environment and wait for the enemy, smart missiles sneak around defenses,
scout systems seek out the enemy and direct the attack. Gool strategy is
extremely fluid and unpredictable, but fortunately the Gools have not used
their weapons much since the Great War and the unfortunate
near-destruction of the Vessels of Potentiality. 

> 3) Computers.  Computers I see as very sophisticated perhaps even in
> first generation AI (true intelligence). 

I assume you talk about human computers. Whatever technology humans has 
is bound to be surpassed by at least one other species. The robots 
mentioned above supports the AI idea. However, if strong AI is possible 
we will have a hard time explaining why it can't be used to speed up 
technological development more, so that the Coalition would be 
unimaginably more powerful. 

> Holographic and/or molecular storage systems.  Machines built on
> high-temperature superconductors and fibre optics.  

I would like optical quantum computers for use in the hyperdrive (they can
analyze all possible manipulations of the fields and find the best in
realtime). 

Memory storage in cubes of bacterial rhodopsin, read by lasers (already 
made in the laboratory).

Different races will have very different computers. Some use the services 
of the Orbs, others use Hafaru superconducting computers, Mother 
quantum-optics or even Gool hydrologic (not fast, but *very* rugged).

> I would imagine all interfaces would be a combination
> of touch screen and natural language interface perhaps with a video
> component to 'see' gesters and expressions.  Small 'home' computers
> would also be quite advance but, obviously, not as far as the state-of-
> the-art systems.

I imagine that the developed world (before the war) had a highly 
sophisticated information economy (imagine the Internet with AI agents, a 
good user interface, several orders of more computing power and 
information), but it was destroyed almost completely by the war. The 
space colonies and ships have their own networks, but they are very 
limited compared to the destroyed Net. 

> 4) Weapons.  Particle beam weapons, laser weapons, stunners, mini-rocket
> launchers, as well as high-volume slug throwers.  Powered armor and 
> combat robots would be common I should think.

I'm not that keen on particle beam weapons unless we have very good 
energy sources, and then they would probably be best for space battles. 

How would a stunner work? Like a taser?

Antimatter bombs: blows up in the stratosphere and forms an expanding 
cloud of ambiplasma after the initial nuclear detonation. This will 
remain several seconds (or even minutes if the air is thin) and bathe 
everything in line-of-sight with hard gamma rays. Good way to sterilize a 
planet (of course MIRVs could do the job, but then you would have much 
more radioactivity left). 

> 5) Power.  Non-polluting sources would be most common.  Solar where
> available, geothermal otherwise with fusion filling in the rest.
> Wind and water would serve as backup or auxillary sources in most
> cases.

Fission in suitable environments. Antimatter for spaceships.

> 6) Transportation.  Personal transport will be via anti-grav vehicles
> powered by small fusion reactors or advanced battery systems. 

I'm not so sure about that dense and portable energy sources. I think 
they could change things more than we think.

> Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
> flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
> for planets that have nearby moons. 

Very unlikely. The necessary modifications are too different to be 
economic - you would have to both have enough radiation shielding, a hull 
able to stand both high and low pressures, corrosion, heat and other 
things. Such a vehicle would be much more expensive than three dedicated 
vehicles.

Besides, if there was this kind of long-range, versatile vehicles around, 
the Earth would be totally different. *Anybody* could visit anybody, dive 
in the deep oceans, camp in Amazonas. Not to mention the effect of 
refugees from devastated areas during the war appearing en masse in other 
regions.

> I prefer lots of privately owned smaller crafts
> of both intra and inter stellar capabilities but I'm not sure that is
> possible given other parameters that have been discussed (cost of
> FTL for example).

Mini-FTL crafts could be viable, they travel much more slowly than the 
big starships, but can coast along in the system. I think most traffic is 
in the inner system anyway, so an antimatter propulsion system might be 
enough.

I like the idea of private in-system crafts, but starships are probably 
on another order (otherwise the Coalition would have spread across the 
galaxy as corporations, outlaws and explorers settled remote worlds).


Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:14:32 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Technology

On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Joerg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >2) Robotics.  Robots should be easy and common.  They can run the full
> >gambit from stationary construction-bots to mobile robots that have
> >an appearence similar to the various races (ie Humanoid for humans).
> 
> What about nanorobots?

My idea is that nanotechnology exists (other races use biological or 
other kinds of nanotech), but the main problem is complexity. Building a 
nanobot that creates a certain chemical or coats surfaces with perfect 
diamond is possible, but when dealing with the complexities of the world 
its hard to make good nanorobot behaviors - its almost easier to 
manipulate bacteria to do the work.

If we introduce nanorobots, be prepared to deal with nanocomputers too. 

> Probably even room-temperature superconductors.

This could be an interesting high-tech trading product. 

> >and fibre optics.  I would imagine all interfaces would be a combination
> >of touch screen and natural language interface perhaps with a video
> >component to 'see' gesters and expressions.  
> 
> User interface technology is always species-specific and not
> interchangeable!

Except for Windows which is a rip-off of the Hafaru standard operating 
system... :-)

> I assume that these machines are networked.  Each planet has its own
> global high-speed network, and these networks might be interconnected
> through tiny wormholes.

Do we want wormholes? I think they would be too complex to create and keep
stable for the Coalition civilizations, although this art could have been
mastered by other, more advanced races. Maybe wormhole communications
links are an ultra-expensive import from the galactic arms? 

> Starships, however, are not
> wormhole-networked, and incommunicado during FTL, because wormholes
> cannot be carried FTL (fatal interactions between wormhole and warp field!).

You bet! Those timelike closed curves that would result would probably be 
rather interesting (I saw a paper about photon tunneling though the warp 
fields, and the combination of wormholes, FTL ships and virtual photons 
moving FTL relative to the ship only promises trouble).

> Hmmm, I don't like force shields, and I think that beam weapons are not
> efficient enough to be a vital rival to missiles and slug throwers.

After all, a beam weapon has to have some advantage before the already 
existing (and unfortunately highly developed) missile technology. I think 
they might be interesting in space, but a slug moving 10 km/s is even 
more deadly...

> And furthermore, only individualistic societies will sport personal
> vehicles.  If the species has a hive mind, the term `personal' makes
> no sense at all!

And some species don't like to move either. 

> Remember that we have a multi-species society.  That means that each species
> has its own physiology and anatomy, and therefore its own distinct medical
> science, which is vastly different from that of other species.  Medical
> advances of one species therefore *cannot* be transferred to any other;
> even the best Hafaru doc cannot cure a Swimmer, for instance (except if
> he has also studied Swimmer medicine, which is so different from Hafaru
> medicine that it is to be regarded a completely different field of story).
> Hence, the medical tech levels of different species might be wildly different,
> as no species profits from the progress of other species.

Exactly! I wonder what other areas are species specific? Biotechnology is 
of course biochemistry specific. Psychology and social science is also 
specific. I think there is a thriving market of xenolinguists, 
xenoanthropologists and mediators.

> With each bit of technology, one must seek the answer to the question,
> "Does it make sense *to the species in question*?"  Some technologies
> which make perfect sense to us don't make sense to some other species.

And vice versa. 


From: "Tony L. Hayes" <tlh@epsilon.com>
Subject: Re: Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 11:37:23 -0500 (EST)

Anders Sandberg writes ->
> How cheap and portable do we want it? If it doesn't require immense
> amounts of energy then a lot of interesting things become possible: 
> gravitic buildings, antigravity-assisted launches, antigravity vehicles,
> remote manipulation or even flying suits. This could have interesting
> effects on architecture, daily life and technology for races that use it a
> lot. My take is that antigravity is energy consuming, limiting its use to
> larger structures (buildings, ships).

Would it be a problem for these things to exist?  What value is a gravitic
building?  Just because it's possible doesn't means it would or should
be done.  I don't think that cheap anti-grav is a problem.  Also,
the energy costs and difficulties would scale with size.  It's cheap to
build a car or a go-cart, but to put an entire building on wheels is
hard and expensive.  Why not the same with anti-grav?  Smaller craft
upto say aircraft sized or even small spacecraft would be cost effective,
but then it would taper off.
 
> Do we want inertial damping? It would probably be hard to create a good 
> inertial damper without bending the laws of physics further. What would 
> be possible with this technology is artificial gravity fields that 
> automatically adjust to accelerations, making the interior of a craft 
> *almost* stable - the dampeners will not be able to handle large or 
> unexpected disturbances (think of the bridge in Star Trek). 

This is exactly what I was suggesting.  See me reply to Jeorg's (did I
spell that right?) post.
 
> > 2) Robotics.  Robots should be easy and common.
> 
> This depends a lot on which race we discuss. I have already written that 
> the Gools are heavily into robotics (its essentially an extension of 
> their way of living anyway), but not all races use it equally. Humans 
> might rely on it a lot, which could introduce an interesting twist: after 
> the Battle of Earth most of the robot production facilities were 
> completely destroyed (strategic targets), so the remaining robots are 
> extremely valuable and are patched and repaired as much as possible.

Again, any race may chose to use a technology or not.  What we need to
define is the limits in each area.  Also, Earth will be rebuilding all
of its production facilities.
 
> > 3) Computers.  Computers I see as very sophisticated perhaps even in
> > first generation AI (true intelligence). 
> 
> I assume you talk about human computers. Whatever technology humans has 
> is bound to be surpassed by at least one other species. The robots 
> mentioned above supports the AI idea. However, if strong AI is possible 
> we will have a hard time explaining why it can't be used to speed up 
> technological development more, so that the Coalition would be 
> unimaginably more powerful. 

You assume incorrectly.  I would say that the best known computer
technology by any race would be approaching AI or just barely into.
Intelligence in a computer doesn't mean that the computer is a genius.
A computer with an IQ of 20 would be a miracle of technology but isn't
going to revolutionize the planet.  Further, beginning AI might not
mean intelligence at all.  Perhaps the first thing to be discovered
is emotions.  We have feeling machine but they haven't had a truely
original thought in their lives.
 
> Memory storage in cubes of bacterial rhodopsin, read by lasers (already 
> made in the laboratory).

Hope they don't all die! <grin>
 
> How would a stunner work? Like a taser?

Perhaps or it overloads the neural system of the creature, which may
mean that some species are immune to stunners and that some species
may have to have a special type of stunner ("No, idiot, the Human
stunner!" ZAP! "To late!")
 
> > Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
> > flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
> > for planets that have nearby moons. 
> 
> Very unlikely. The necessary modifications are too different to be 
> economic - you would have to both have enough radiation shielding, a hull 
> able to stand both high and low pressures, corrosion, heat and other 
> things. Such a vehicle would be much more expensive than three dedicated 
> vehicles.

Possibly but maybe not.  It depends on lots of variable.  Low orbit for
short times wouldn't need as much sheilding.  Corrosive protection would
only be needed if you were going into a corresive environment.  Pressure
would only be a problem if you go really deep.  On board safety equipment
could prevent you from exceeding the depth rating, and with new metals
and construction techniques, how deep would that be?  Besides, it's just
a thought.  We have limited mult-environment vehicles already.  It seems
a reasonable projection to me.
 
> Besides, if there was this kind of long-range, versatile vehicles around, 
> the Earth would be totally different. *Anybody* could visit anybody, dive 
> in the deep oceans, camp in Amazonas. Not to mention the effect of 
> refugees from devastated areas during the war appearing en masse in other 
> regions.

Again, perhaps not deep oceans.  And what is the problem with long range
travel?  We're only talking planetary travel, not interplanetary.  How
does it differ from mass transit to a hub and renting a car or other
local transport?  Don't you think the Amazons will be campable by anyone
in a hundred years?  (assuming we don't destroy them in the meantime
that is).
 
> I like the idea of private in-system crafts, but starships are probably 
> on another order (otherwise the Coalition would have spread across the 
> galaxy as corporations, outlaws and explorers settled remote worlds).
 
Depends on the number of easy to settle worlds.  Corporations _might_
have the resources to settle a planet but your average joe wouldn't.
Again, I'm thinking of small starships being equivilent to aircraft
or ships of today.  They're not cheap but, with a little backing and
luck, nearly anyone can buy a ship or a plane and begin a cargo or
passenger route.  Especially if they can get some government subsidies
or a nice 'cash cow' to help them during the early stages.  I'm not
talking about a starship in everyone's garage any more than large
airplanes or ships are common today.  I just don't like the idea of
making them super hard to get.


Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:41:22 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Technology

On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Tony L. Hayes wrote:
> It depends more or whether we wish to postulate that the technology
> to make life like (where life like means resembling the species
> observing the construction) robots is possible and exists.

But this also depends on the species, not to mention their perceptions. A 
species navigating by ultrasound (the X) or smell (Gools) may be hard to 
fool, while visually oriented species like humans are easier to fool. But 
I wonder if this wish to make humanoid robots is universal; some species 
probably regard the whole idea as silly. They, of course, want robots as 
similar to the fifteen manifestations of water as possible. 

> I agree, but it is easier to successfully explain a concept in common
> Human terms then to try to generalize.  If a species is blind and uses
> smell, then the primary interfaces would be based on that, however,
> since intelligence is generally equated with the ability to use tools,
> a touch interface is highly likely in any species.  Further, natural
> language implys the language native to the species, even if that language
> has no spoken component. 

One of the big uses of computers in the Coalition will be translation. As 
I wrote, the Standard is intended as a kind of metalanguage for use in 
translation, and to become a real member of the Coalition, a race has to 
develop a way to communicate in Standard (through linguists, computers or 
some other means). This is an area where AI is very handy.

> Lastly, despite arguments to the contrary, I
> believe any successful species will have sight as a primary sense.  True
> this is a Human bias and I openly admit that but I still will maintain
> that point of view.

What do you base this view (!) on? I think races that has a long-distance
hi-fi sense (like sight, hearing or sonar) will have an advantage over
races with only local senses (touch, smell, electricity), but it doesn't 
seem to be absolutely limiting.

> Plantary networks I agree with, maybe even system wide but I don't
> know if I like FTL communications.  Sure its possible _if_ you can
> construct stable wormholes or some similar approach but I'm kind of
> partial to communications being equal to the speed of travel.  Its
> a personal bias.

Besides, it is much more fun having courier ships or unmanned message 
missiles.

> I don't like force shields either - I think you are misunderstanding
> Powered Armor.  This is armor that has robotic components to enhance
> the strength and endurance of the wearer.

Not to mention computing resources to help the wearer with target 
acquisition, tactics and communications. 

> As for beam weapons, they have several key advantages:
> 
> 1) Ammo is probably just a rechargable power pack or a microfusion
> generator of some sort so you don't need to lug heavy missiles around
> with you (ammo is quite heavy when you have to carry it day after day
> after day).

But this assumes that microfusion generators/battery packs with a lot of 
output are easily portable (lets say ghostbuster backpacks). That will 
change a lot of things.

> I am assuming cheap, portable energy.  I also am assuming that anti-grav
> is not that difficult/energy consuming by this point.  Roads for pedestrians?
> You mean sidewalks?  How may potholes have you seen in a sidewalk?  How
> often do you see construction work on a sidewalk (not counting when they're
> digging down to the pipes below)?  Sidewalk maintenance is not relavent
> compared to road maintenance.  Also, I don't see sidewalks running from
> LA to Boston - who'd walk that far?  I don't think the need for sidewalks
> would save wheeled vehicles - assuming that energy and anti-grav is
> cheap and portable.

Of course, this makes the situation on Earth even more desperate and 
interesting - a destroyed infrastructure, no energy for the anti-grav 
cars, and thus no transports at all. 

> Granted, medical knowlege of a Human
> wouldn't help you treat any alien unless they are very closely related
> (even animals get their own doctors after all <grin>).  However, computer
> surgery should work on anyone with suitable mods to the programs and
> equipment. 

If a human doctor with suitable mods and programs can help a wounded
Ikkadju, then the computer can probably do a fairly good job helped by
anyone. Common sense seems to be the important thing - this part is ripped
and leaks fluids - but details are extremely different - to decrease blood
flow, the doctor has to angle the wings at 60 degrees and possibly drain
some more blood to make the emergency coagulation start. 

> Further, it is likely that germs and viruses will effect
> other species so technology on sterilization or viruses should be
> usable if only as a basis to conduct research or to suggest new ideas.

But sterilization may be very different too. Gools might need to be
sprayed with symbiotic protozoans that eat their bacteria. And a 
bacterial infection could look like anything - if your Hafaru envoy 
starts becoming dim prematurely, it could be due to an allergic reaction 
to a minor infection of hafaru bacteria in the electric organs.

> I don't see the "vastly different" part.  Different yes, totally
> worthless no.

A human doctor spends years learning how to interpret human ailments and
how they can be treated, alien ailments (except for obvious ones like
broken structural organs) are very hard to deal with. I think a good
doctor has a better chance helping a wounded alien than Joe Sixpack, but
not that much more. 

> Life, I think, will have much more in common then it will have
> differences.  I think lots of techniques will be exchangable as will
> lots of knowledge.  That still doesn't mean that a Human doc could
> treat a Hafaru for example but that does mean that technology and
> advancements of one race will be of value to most if not all other
> races.

I doubt that. Human genetics obviously is worthless to other species,
although some of the methods may give the Mothers a new idea of how to
breed their pleiosomes. Hibernation techniques that work for one species
are quite useless to humans who lack the biological potential. The Soft
Ones can be frozen solid and get new record as chemicals, but that is due
to their (very) peculiar biology. 


From: "Tony L. Hayes" <tlh@epsilon.com>
Subject: Re: Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:29:38 -0500 (EST)

Anders Sandberg writes ->
> On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Tony L. Hayes wrote:
> > It depends more on whether we wish to postulate that the technology
> > to make lifelike (where lifelike means resembling the species
> > observing the construction) robots is possible and exists.
> 
> But this also depends on the species, not to mention their perceptions. A 
> species navigating by ultrasound (the X) or smell (Gools) may be hard to 
> fool, while visually oriented species like humans are easier to fool. But 
> I wonder if this wish to make humanoid robots is universal; some species 
> probably regard the whole idea as silly. They, of course, want robots as 
> similar to the fifteen manifestations of water as possible. 

This doesn't depend on the species at all.  It's a game.  If we say
that any species, should it choose to do so, can produce a robot that
is indistigushable from natural members, then it is so.  How difficult
that is and how much technology that requires will depend on the species,
but what we are doing is setting limits and guideline for the game.  If
we want an thing to be so, then it is so.
 
> > Lastly, despite arguments to the contrary, I
> > believe any successful species will have sight as a primary sense.  True
> > this is a Human bias and I openly admit that but I still will maintain
> > that point of view.
> 
> What do you base this view (!) on? I think races that has a long-distance
> hi-fi sense (like sight, hearing or sonar) will have an advantage over
> races with only local senses (touch, smell, electricity), but it doesn't 
> seem to be absolutely limiting.

I base this on one simple fact: nature chooses what is best.  There is
no reason why nature would form an entire planet with no species having
sight given its clear advantages (sonar would be a weak second, as it
doesn't have the resolution of vision).  Since vision doesn't depend
on movement or the presence of sound or odor, only on light, it is 
clearly a good sense for any species.  Blind creatures will have a hard
time evading a sighted foe, especially if it also has a good sense of smell
or hearing to augment it.  Why are there so few creatures on earth that do
not have sight as a primary sense?  Sure there may be several key senses,
but sight is almost always one of them.

As for light, we have ample examples of creature producing their
own light.  There is also light even at night, and we haven't even
discussed non-visual regions of the spectrum.

The advantages of sight are, in my opinion, so strong, that survival
and ascension to any level of real intelligence depends on it.

I may be wrong, hell, being wrong is a daily occurance and you can
postulate whatever you want, it is after all only a game, but any
race not using sight as a key sense, in my view, is contrived so
that someone can see, "Gee, look how alien this race is, they don't
even see!"  In my mind, aliens don't have to be blind or silicon
based, or even non-humanoid.  Nature is going to select the best
form for intelligence, and I think that form will have certain
qualities:

1) Carbon based - This is simple chemistry.  Carbon works best with
silcon being a weak second.  I think Asimov spends some time on
the whys in "Quasar, Quasar" and others have as well.

2) Vison - see above

3) Hands of some sort - needed for tool manipulation.  Geniuses
who can't build, write, or create aren't of much value.  This doesn't
preclude unusual hands like psychic powers if people really want that.

4) Hearing is probably pretty common as well.  It is probably the
most convenient way (short of telepathy) for communication with
vison probably being the only real competitor (smell maybe third).

There are probably others if one thought about it but this is just
an example.

> But this assumes that microfusion generators/battery packs with a lot of 
> output are easily portable (lets say ghostbuster backpacks). That will 
> change a lot of things.

That is exactly what I was assuming.
 
> Of course, this makes the situation on Earth even more desperate and 
> interesting - a destroyed infrastructure, no energy for the anti-grav 
> cars, and thus no transports at all. 

Possibly or less.  Setting up a hydrogen still isn't that hard and if
vehicles are powered by fusion, hydrogen 'gas stations' should be as
plentiful as current gas stations.  How would having wheels help you?
 
> > surgery should work on anyone with suitable mods to the programs and
> > equipment. 
> 
> If a human doctor with suitable mods and programs can help a wounded
> Ikkadju, then the computer can probably do a fairly good job helped by
> anyone. Common sense seems to be the important thing - this part is ripped

I didn't say that.  I'm saying if Humans build a nice cool computer/robot
surgical system, then the Ikkadju should be able to modify the system
and programs to suit thier own species and their _own_ doctors thus the
medical advances of the Humans were of value to another race.

> > Further, it is likely that germs and viruses will effect
> > other species so technology on sterilization or viruses should be
> > usable if only as a basis to conduct research or to suggest new ideas.
> 
> But sterilization may be very different too. Gools might need being 
> sprayed with symbiotic protozoans that eat their bacteria. And a 
> bacterial infection could look like anything - if your Hafaru envoy 
> starts becoming dim prematurely, it could be due to an allergic reaction 
> to a minor infection of hafaru bacteria in the electric organs.

Sterilization doesn't only apply to wounds.  Equipment needs to be sterile
as do operating rooms for example.  Suppose the Gools invent a nifty
filter that works better at filtering virus and bacterium in the air
system, it may be very useful to the Human operating rooms as well.

Clearly not every advance will be valuble to everyone, but the
statement I'm arguing against was that _NO_ advance would be of 
value because the species would be too vastly different.
 
> > I don't see the "vastly different" part.  Different yes, totally
> > worthless no.
> 
> A human doctor spends years learning how to interpret human ailments and
> how they can be treated, alien ailments (except for obvious ones like
> broken structural organs) are very hard to deal with. I think a good
> doctor has a better chance helping a wounded alien than Joe Sixpack, but
> not that much more. 

I never said a Human doctor would be worth a dime working on an alien.
Where is this coming from?  We are talking about medical advances.  Medical
advances do not mean a cure for a disease though that is one.  It means
anything that promotes the ability to heal and to provide an environment
condusive to healing.  I still maintain that lots of medical advances
would be usable in some form to other species if only as a basis for
new research, "Hey, we should be able to do something like that too but
we never thought about it before!"
 
> I doubt that. Human genetics obviously is worthless to other species,
> although some of the methods may give the Mothers a new idea of how to

Exactly my point!  Human genetics is a field, but a medical advance in
genetics, say a new way to split genes or whatever, might be useful
to another race even if the subsequent knowledge isn't!

> breed their pleiosomes. Hibernation techniques that work for one species
> are quite useless to humans who lack the biological potential. The Soft

But the study of the techniques and the results on the biology of that
species might allow humans to build a hibernation chamber (cold sleep).


Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:30:30 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Technology

On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Tony L. Hayes wrote:
> Anders Sandberg writes ->
> > 
> > How cheap and portable do we want it? If it doesn't require immense
> > amounts of energy then a lot of interesting things become possible: 
> > gravitic buildings, antigravity-assisted launches, antigravity vehicles,
> > remote manipulation or even flying suits. This could have interesting
> > effects on architecture, daily life and technology for races that use it a
> > lot. My take is that antigravity is energy consuming, limiting its use to
> > larger structures (buildings, ships).
> 
> Would it be a problem for these things to exist?  What value is a gravitic
> building?

Such buildings would be able to circumvent a lot of material problems, 
and could become very high and slender (an antigravity-stabilized 
beanstalk sounds quite possible). It would perhaps even be movable (but 
that is probably rare; too energy-expensive). 

> Also,
> the energy costs and difficulties would scale with size.  Its cheap to
> build a car or a go-cart but to put an entire building on wheels is
> hard and expensive.  Why not the same with anti-grav?  Smaller craft
> upto say aircraft sized or even small spacecraft would be cost effective
> but then it would taper off.

Scaling can go both ways. Explosion motors are not used in toys or home 
machines but in cars and aircrafts; making a pocket motor is possible but 
inefficient.

As I see it, having portable, cheap antigravity and dense energy sources 
will lead to *lots* of changes that could easily make the world too
confusing to deal with. Some ideas off my head:

Antigravity missiles (since they don't leave hot exhausts they are very 
hard to find with IR). Personal antigravity suits (bulky, but safer
than jetpacks. Now you have  to lock your windows against burglars) 
Antigravity toys. Antigravity elevators. Crushing things with increased
gravity. Worldwide very fast travel (say good bye to any nation state
you don't like; there will be too many vehicles in the air to stop them
at the border). Bizarre forms of massage/virtual sex using antigravity arrays.
Weapons (if you have antigravity able to lift a car, you can easily rip 
out a human heart).

There is nothing wrong with this per se, but the world might become very 
different...

> I would say that the best known computer
> technology by any race would be approaching AI or just barely into.
> Intelligence in a computer doesn't mean that the computer is a genius.
> A computer with an IQ of 20 would be a miracle of technology but isn't
> going to revolutionize the planet. 

Yes it will. With IQ 20 it could do simple clerical or routine work. And
you could make as many copies as you wished of the program, changing the
way administration and industry works completely (and removing lots of
people to new jobs or uneployment). Everybody could have a few specialized
AI advisors, helping them or doing supporting tasks. Intelligence
Amplification is not far away. 

> Further, beginning AI might not
> mean intelligence at all.  Perhaps the first thing to be discovered
> is emotions.  We have feeling machine but they haven't had a truely
> original thought in their lives.

Interesting idea! That was unusual. Hmm, maybe the cybernetic movement 
among the Mothers are developing social or ethical AI!

> > Memory storage in cubes of bacterial rhodopsin, read by lasers (already 
> > made in the laboratory).
> 
> Hope they don't all die! <grin>

Actually, the rhodopsin is already purified from the bacteria and stored 
in some kind of gel. But I wonder about a race using bacteria as memory 
storage...

> > How would a stunner work? Like a taser?
> 
> Perhaps or it overloads the neural system of the creature, which may
> mean that some species are immune to stunners and that some species
> may have to have a special type of stunner ("No, idiot, the Human
> stunner!" ZAP! "To late!")

Tasers would work against most races that had an electric nervous system 
(although in unexpected ways; it might be deafening to the Hafaru, but 
nothing more). Some races would be hard to get through their skin...

Of course, other races have other ideas: the Gools may have developed 
stink bombs that are 100% effective against Gools but other races just 
find them mildly annoying. The Hafaru might be able to electrify people 
by hugging them...

> > > Personal vehicles may be tri-phibian capable of 'normal'
> > > flight or NOE, submarine, and low orbital - perhaps even cis-lunar
> > > for planets that have nearby moons. 
> > 
> > Very unlikely. The necessary modifications are too different to be 
> > economic - you would have to both have enough radiation shielding, a hull 
> > able to stand both high and low pressures, corrosion, heat and other 
> > things. Such a vehicle would be much more expensive than three dedicated 
> > vehicles.
> 
> Possibly but maybe not.  It depends on lots of variable.  Low orbit for
> short times wouldn't need as much sheilding.

There will be enough radiation to be unhealthy over longer periods, and a 
fleare would be deadly. 

Besides, do you think anybody would like traffic accidents in the air? 
Air transport could become cheaper and much more common, but mass 
use of air-cars is unlikely.

> Corrosive protection would
> only be needed if you were going into a corrosive invironment. 

Like the ocean, ionosphere or the ozone layer. 

> Pressure
> would only be a problem if you go really deep.  On board safety equipment
> could prevent you from exceeding the depth rating and with new metals
> and construction techniques, how deep would that be?  Besides, it's just
> a thought.  We have limited mult-environment vehicles already.  It seems
> a reasonable projection to me.

I think they could be built. But there is no economy in it. 

> Again, perhaps not deep oceans.  And what is the problem with long range
> travel?  We're only talking planetary travel, not interplanetary.  How
> does it differ from mass transit to a hub and renting a car or other
> local transport?  Don't you think the Amazons will be campable by anyone
> in a hundred years?  (assuming we don't destroy them in the meantime
> that is).

Just look at the multicultural society that is already developing due to 
faster communications. Now imagine personal vehicles giving ordinary 
people the ability to move several 1000 km (to be conservative) if they 
wish - the social implications are staggering. Tourism will become 
something else altogether. If something interesting happens, a lot of 
people will be able to get there and watch. What about national borders? 
What the Internet is doing to politics and jurisdiction in the 
information world, cheap antigravity transportation would do to the 
physical world. 

> Again, I'm thinking of small starships being equivilent to aircraft
> or ships of today.  They're not cheap but, with a little backing and
> luck, nearly anyone can buy a ship or a plane and begin a cargo or
> passenger route.  Especially if they can get some government subsidies
> or a nice 'cash cow' to help them during the early stages.  I'm not
> talking about a starship in everyone's garage any more than large
> airplanes or ships are common today.  I just don't like the idea of
> making them super hard to get.

This will of course depend on the economy of the race. I'm not adverse to 
the idea of privately owned starships, but the number will depend on the 
economy of the race. I seriously doubt mankind has very many ships, so 
they will be very expensive. And after the war, the space powers will 
commandeer all available craft for the defense of Earth - anybody who 
doesn't volunteer is branded as a traitor against humanity. Isn't it nice 
how war makes people polite?


From: "Tony L. Hayes" <tlh@epsilon.com>
Subject: Re: Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:26:38 -0500 (EST)

Anders Sandberg writes ->
> Scaling can go both ways. Explosion motors are not used in toys or home 
> machines but in cars and aircrafts; making a pocket motor is possible but 
> inefficient.

Exactly.  It would only be viable for a range in the middle just like
gas powered motors (though you forgot about model aircraft and cars
that do use gas engines).
 
> As I see it, having portable, cheap antigravity and dense energy sources 
> will lead to *lots* of  changes that could easily make the world too
> confusing to deal with. Some  ideas off my head:
> 
> Antigravity missiles (since they don't leave hot exhausts they are very 
> hard to find with IR)

But it might leave other traces, and who is to say that the process for
doing anti-gravity doesn't create excess heat?

> Personal antigravity suits (bulky, but safer than jetpacks. Now you have 
> to lock your windows against burglars) 

You do anyway, you know, ladders?  Or get to the roof and repel down
the outside.  Depends on how creative you are.

> Antigravity toys.

Sure!  Mini hover craft only with A/G.  Again this depends on _how_
cheap.  $10,000 for a car (or grav vehicle) is reasonable for most
people, but $2500 for a kids toy?  Not so likely.

> Antigravity elevators. Crushing things with increased gravity.

Again, the utility would depend on the cost.  A/G can still be cheap
without being rediculously cheap.  Could it compete with current 
systems for over all cost?

> Worldwide very fast travel (say good bye to any nation state you don't 
> like; there will be too many vehicles in the air to stop them at the border).

A/G doesn't have to be fast.  Perhaps only 100 - 150 miles per hour -
about the speed of a private plane

> Bizarre forms of massage/virtual sex using antigravity arrays.

This is a MUST!

> Weapons (if you have antigravity able to lift a car, you can easily rip 
> out a human heart).

Maybe, depends on how you have the A/G working.  I'm think more like
a plate that can (for lack of a better term) nullify gravity beneath it.
Then, by adjusting the plates you can get the gravity field to pull you
around or maybe the plates can generate thrust as well.  But to project
the effect to a distance to grab _just_ the heart and rip it out
I'm not sure of.
 
> There is nothing wrong with this per se, but the world might become very 
> different...

I don't see it being that different then it is now.
 
> > You assume incorrectly.  I would say that the best known computer
> > technology by any race would be approaching AI or just barely into.
> > Intelligence in a computer doesn't mean that the computer is a genius.
> > A computer with an IQ of 20 would be a miracle of technology but isn't
> > going to revolutionize the planet. 
> 
> Yes it will. With IQ 20 it could do simple clerical or routine work. And
> you could make as many copies as you wished of the program, changing the
> way administration and industry works completely (and removing lots of

How is this different from a good program that can sort and file and take
dictation and place calls and answer the phone and send faxes and order
parts by monitoring stock and etc.  We can do most if not all of this
today.  And yes, computers will eventually make 'mundane' jobs obsolete
but not overnight and not because we developed very basic intelligence.
I can't think of much an IQ 20 computer could do over a well programmed
non-AI computer, but it would be the first halting steps into true AI.

Further, what if in the process of discovering AI we find that an
AI system has to learn.  We can't input data like a normal computer
but rather _MUST_ let it learn (for some obscure reason - I have
no idea why this would be the case but just suppose).  If it has
an IQ of 20, it ain't learning a hell of a lot none too soon!  To
the best of my knowledge, no Human ever tested has been that low
on the IQ scale.  Now think of the most Learning Disabled or MR
person you've ever met or seen and try to think about teaching
them how to do _anything_.

> > Possibly but maybe not.  It depends on lots of variable.  Low orbit for
> > short times wouldn't need as much sheilding.
> 
> There will be enough radiation to be unhealthy over longer periods, and a 
> flare would be deadly. 

But you seem to be thinking in terms of todays technology and construction
materials.  What if we discover new ceremics that are light but have
high refractive indexes so that hard radiation is reflected away or if
they can simply absorb it?

I offer the suggestion to imply that as technology advances, certain
forms of travel may merge as the ability to do something become
trivial.  Perhaps all grav craft have radiation shielding so that
a single design can be used on many worlds including, say, the moon.
It may be cheaper to build a lot of one design than fewer of 5 or 10
designs.  Then again it may not.  A/G would certainly replace (I would
think) cars, aircraft, and surface ships.  I offer submarine and
low orbit as options or possibilities depending on how trivial the
capability may become.
 
> Besides, do you think anybody would like traffic accidents in the air? 
> Air transport could become cheaper and much more common, but mass 
> use of air-cars is unlikely.

I've not met many people who like any traffic accidents regardless
of where they take place.  However, consider that the velocities
would not be a lot greater then on the ground (as one assumption),
that you'd have more advanced warning, that there is a hell of a lot
more space then there is on the ground where one is confined to pre-defined
lanes.  Consider also, air traffic control where people are assigned to
air lanes that are fairly seperated, several lanes wide and several
lanes high.  You'd never see any one else until you got near a city
where the density would go up.

Consider the computer safety system that would warn of or take 
evasive actions if a collison event is detected as possible.  Consider
the inertial damping fields that, like airbags, would kick on to help
reduce injury then, perhaps eject you with your personal emergency
grav chute to float you to the ground.

The point is, there are lots of advantages and there are risks, but
would they be greater then driving on a crouded interstate?
 
> Like the ocean, ionosphere or the ozone layer. 

Hmm...I don't consider the ocean as corrosive but, yes, you would
have to worry about rust if it were a metal based craft, but what if
it were ceremic?
 
> I think they could be built. But there is no economy in it. 

Economy is based strictly on demand.  If there is a demand there
is by definition an economy.
 
> Just look at the multicultural society that is already developing due to 
> faster communications. Now imagine personal vehicles giving ordinary 
> people the ability to move several 1000 km (to be conservative) if they 
> wish - the social implications are staggering. Tourism will become 

You mean, like a car?  I can drive 600 miles in a day if I want right
now.  I just drove 1500 miles a few months ago to move from one
state to another.  I routinely drove to visit my folk - 450 miles
each way.

This isn't really easy but it isn't hard.  If the A/G craft travels
at, say, 100 miles an hour (like a small plane) it would not signficantly
change how things work (at least not in America).

> something else altogether. If something interesting happens, a lot of 
> people will be able to get there and watch. What about national borders? 

But they can now if they want.

> What the Internet is doing to politics and jurisdiction in the 
> information world, cheap antigravity transportation would do to the 
> physical world. 

I think this will happen even without A/G.  Helicopters are becoming
more and more common.  They have lots in common with A/G.  They are
quickly becoming downright cheap!  About the only difference would
be carring capacity which might not be all that different come to
think of it.  A/G might have lifting limit based on energy and
size of the A/G unit.  Do you really thing that in say 100 years we
won't be able to travel, at will, to nearly any place we want?  Even
with out A/G?
 
> This will of course depend on the economy of the race. I'm not adverse to 
> the idea of privately owned starships, but the number will depend on the 
> economy of the race. I seriously doubt mankind has very many ships, so 
> they will be very expensive. And after the war, the space powers will 
> commandeer all available craft for the defense of Earth - anybody who 
> doesn't volunteer is branded as a traitor against humanity. Isn't it nice 
> how war makes people polite?
 
Well, again, the point is where is the technology level.  Can starships
be made cheaply enough that you can take a risk and become a free trader
of some sort.  The fact that Earth has been ravaged by war is not
relevent to that decision.  After it rebuilds, Earth can make the
ships or someone can sell them in the meantime or whatever.  The ravaging
of Earth is, much like expensive FTL, a premise I don't like but that's
just my opinion.  The real question is will that premise, as you are
packaging it, be interesting to anyone else?  In short, is there a
market for it.  Since we are designing a game and not writting a 
novel, things like that matter.


Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:15:05 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Technology

On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Tony L. Hayes wrote:
> If we say
> that any species, should it choose to do so, can produce a robot that
> is indistigushable from natural members, then it is so.  How difficult
> that it and how much technology that requires will depend on the species
> but what we are doing is setting limits and guideline for the game.  If
> we want an thing to be so, then it is so.

Of course, but the world has to make some sense. We could say that 90% of 
all planets are made of green cheese, but that would be plain silly. I 
think most species would be able to design "humanoid" robots if they 
worked hard enough on it, but in many cases it would not be worth the 
trouble. 

I think one of the problems with this technological discussion is that we 
try to deal with all species at the same time. Some are very different, 
and we easily confuse things.

> Nature chooses what is best.  There is
> no reason why nature would form an entire planet with no species having
> sight given its clear advantages (sonar would be a weak second as it
> doesn't have the resolution of vision).

This is because we have evolved on a planet with a clear atmosphere 
(which is not common in the solar system). If we had had a misty 
atmosphere like Venus, vision would have been less useful. I think vision 
is common among species that evolve on earthlike worlds, but not the rule 
on all worlds.

> As for light, we have ample examples of creature producing their
> own light.  There is also light even at night and we haven't even
> discussed non-visual regions of the spectrum.

But shining at night is a good way of attracting predators. 

> I may be wrong, hell, being wrong is a daily occurance and you can
> postulate whatever you want, it is after all only a game, but any
> race not using sight as a key sense, in my view, is contrived so
> that someone can see, "Gee, look how alien this race is, they don't
> even see!"

Good points, even if I disagree on the cruicialness of vision. 
Intelligent species need good senses - at least in our kind of
environment. 

> Nature is going to select the best
> form for intelligence and I think that form will have certain
> qualities:
> 
> 1) Carbon based - This is simple chemistry.  Carbon works best with
> silcon being a weak second.  I think Asimov spends some time on
> the whys in "Quasar, Quasar" and others have as well.

Quite possible, but still leaves immense room for different 
biochemistries. And we have based it on what we know of terrestrial 
biology; maybe most intelligent life is based on quantum fields...

> 3) Hands of some sort - needed for tool manipulation.  Geniuses
> who can't build, write, or create aren't of much value.  This doesn't
> preclude unusual hands like psychic powers if people really want that.

This is an area where uplift could help, but species without hands 
probably never develop enough intelligence anyway. 

> 4) Hearing is probably pretty common as well.  It is probably the
> most convenient way (short of telepathy) for communication with
> vison probably is only real competitor (smell maybe third).

Yes, hearing is useful. But it could be vibrations in the ground.

Note that these arguments do not imply that all species will be humanoid, 
far from it. Of the species we have discussed, only the Hafaru were 
humanoid (and then, only skin deep). But most have fulfilled your 
qualities, with a few exceptions (the Gools are blind but use seeing 
secondary bodies, the Swimmers have changed their biology from the 
original and the X had no use for sight on their homeworld). 

> I'm saying if Humans build a nice cool computer/robot
> surgical system, then the Ikkadju should be able to modify the system
> and programs to suit their own species and their _own_ doctors thus the
> medical advances of the Humans were of value to another race.

OK, now I understand. This might be true, although it would probably 
still be a lot of work converting the autodoc to another species.

But if we look at medical advances done today, most are inapplicable: we 
discover the genes of various diseases, cure them with gene-therapy, 
develop complex antibiotics and therapies. All of these are limited to 
human medicine and biology, only the hardware and some surgical techniques 
are useful (like the autodocs would be). 

> Sterilization doesn't only apply to wounds.  Equipment needs to be sterile
> as do operating rooms for example.  Suppose the Gools invent a nifty
> filter that works better at filtering virus and bacterium in the air
> system, it may be very useful to the Human operating rooms as well.

Yes, of course. The trouble is if this filter is a hive of 
bacteria-eating insectoids that are completely safe for Gools and not for 
humans. But in principle you are right, human doctors might learn a lot 
about open heart surgery from the Ikkadju, who have six heart muscles, 
especially about those neat tricks with using resin containers for the 
valves.

> Clearly not every advance will be valuble to everyone one but the
> statement I'm arguing against was that _NO_ advance would be of 
> value because the species would be too vastly different.

I would recommend you to take a look at a recent issue of "The Lancet
or a similar medical journal, and look for what ideas presented there 
would be applicable to another species. My guess is that there are a few, 
but most are too specific.

> Exactly my point!  Human genetics is a field but a medical advance in
> genetics, say a new way to split genes or whatever, might be useful
> to another race even if the subsequent knowledge isn't!

This depends a lot on the type of genetic material. Human genetic 
material consists of long polymer strands, other species might use 2d 
sheets instead. An exchange of ideas is possible (and very powerful; this 
was what overthrew the Old Ones), but limited. PCR of some kind is probably 
possible for all species, but will work very differently.


Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:04:08 +0100 (MET)
From: Anders Sandberg <nv91-asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Superstrings

Maybe we should base our technobabble on the recent results in superstring
theory. Brian Greene (see article below) has apparently showed that matter
and black holes could be seen as different phases of something fundamental. 
So if there is a way to manipulate this something, you could convert between
the different phases by forcing a phase transition. Gravity technology is
based on converting matter or energy into gravity. 

This doesn't change anything in the game, but gives us some pseudoscience
framework to work in. It is also suitably unknown to be flexible (there could
be new phases of existence) but also somewhat linked to reality. Different
races could have developed different models and methods of using it;
antigravity is just the most common and useful, others play around with new
forms of existence that are useful for artistic purposes or build microscopic
black holes as energy sources (the last one is probably best left to the very
advanced remote civilizations;  that technology seems a bit too heavy for the
Coalition). 

TYING IT ALL TOGETHER WITH SUPERSTRINGS                              HPCwire
Special to HPCwire by Margaret Corbit, CTC Science Writer      Nov. 10, 1995
============================================================================

  Ithaca, NY. --  Researchers working with the Cornell Theory Center (CTC)
have used advanced visualization capabilities and expertise to help explain
a breakthrough that takes us one step closer to the tantalizing possibility
that string theory can unify all of theoretical physics. Cornell physicist
Brian Greene worked with CTC visualization producer Wayne Lytle to create
animated sequences that present the fundamentals of string theory and the
specifics of Greene's and his colleagues' discovery.

  Greene recently found that tiny black holes can be transformed
mathematically into infinitesimal vibrating loops of energy-superstrings.
According to string theory, these loops also lie at the core of elementary
particles such as electrons and quarks. In fact, it appears that all three
(superstrings, black holes, and elementary particles) may be expressions of
the same thing -- of everything. Greene made this discovery working with a
visiting colleague, mathematician David Morrison of Duke University, and with
Andrew Strominger of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

  For more than 25 years physicists worldwide have been exploring string
(formally superstring) theory, a concept that proposes that every subatomic
particle known and all those yet to be observed can be described as
infinitesimal vibrating loops of energy -- the fundamental building blocks of
nature. (Superstrings, or fundamental strings, exist at the opposite end of
the scale from cosmic strings with which they should not be confused. Cosmic
strings promise to have their own impact on our understanding of the
Universe.)

  Experimental proof for the existence of superstrings is beyond modern
technology. The energy needed to probe the mysterious six extra dimensions
bound up in string theory may be as much as one million billion times that
which would have been generated by the superconducting supercollider.

  Even if this technical feat were within reach, the theoretical challenges
would still be daunting. However, theorists such as Greene, Morrison, and
Strominger cannot resist taking them on. One way to approach such a complex
and undeveloped, albeit intuitively pleasing, theory is to push it to its
limits by examining how the theory behaves in extreme cases. "For string
theory to be viable, it must agree with well established theories that are
applicable in ordinary physical contexts," Greene explains. "The theory
shows its true colors when applied to situations in which conventional
theories break down."

  Greene and Morrison were inspired by one such example. In an on-line
preprint, physicist Andrew Strominger at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, showed how certain black holes could be used to resolve a problem
spot in string theory concerning a class of spacetime singularities. When he
included minute, charged black holes as possible outcomes of the string
theory model, the singularities disappeared. On reading this work, Greene and
Morrison immediately contacted Strominger.

  Within days, the three had completed a striking generalization of
Strominger's work that allows the fabric of spacetime to tear apart in a
physically sensible manner. This is a radical modification of Einstein's
original conception, which requires spacetime to remain a smooth and
continuous surface.

  Greene is presenting this breakthrough in an illustrated talk at a number
of universities across the country. He needed CTC visualization expertise to
explain the abstract concepts of string theory and the specifics of the
contribution he and his colleagues have made to it. Lytle's visualizations
represent dynamic shapes changing topologies based on parametric equations
supplied by Greene. They were created within the Visual Programming Language
for Animation (VPLA) computing environment developed by Lytle and were
rendered in parallel on CTC's SGI ONYX.

  String theory proposes that there are six extra dimensions to the universe,
in addition to the four with which we are familiar. One problem is that these
six extra dimensions must curl up to an extremely small size, one too small
to detect at the scales of the other four. These curled dimensions can assume
at least hundreds of thousands of shapes, known as Calabi-Yau manifolds. No
one knows which one represents the universe that we experience.

  In one sequence of Lytle's animation a hollow sphere (a two-dimensional
analog for the six curled dimensions) transforms itself into a number of
other shapes. First the sphere flattens almost to a pancake, then twists into
a spiral, and stretches into a crescent. All are spheres, from the point of
view of topology, a branch of geometry that studies the properties of shapes
that can be smoothly transformed into one another. Finally as the crescent
stretches, its tips fuse and a doughnut shape, or torus, emerges. This
transformation is startling because it breaks the rules of topology. (Some
images from the animation can be viewed at
<http://www.tc.cornell.edu/~corbitm/greene/>.

  However, Greene, Morrison, and Strominger have found that string theory
goes beyond the mathematics of topology and the physics of general
relativity. It allows the fabric of spacetime to tear in a manner analogous
to the transformation of the sphere into a torus. The point at which the
sphere tears is a critical transition. This is the moment when the black hole
becomes infinitesimally small and has no mass.

  The transformation shows that, rather than disappearing, the black hole
reemerges in another form, as an elementary particle. Thus they show that
space can "rip" apart and subsequently "reconnect" thereby changing its basic
structure (topology), without breaking the rules of string theory.

  Greene and his colleagues have shown that black holes and elementary
particles are "two phases" of the same basic substance with a relationship
similar to that of ice and water. According to Greene, "Research in string
theory, the most promising candidate for a unified description of nature's
forces, has revealed that the fabric of spacetime can evolve in far more
dramatic ways than allowed for in more traditional theories such as general
relativity."

  CTC is one of four high performance computing and communications centers
supported by the National Science Foundation. Activities of the Center are
also funded by New York State, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, the
National Center for Research Resources at the National Institutes of Health,
IBM, and other members of the CTC's Corporate Research Institute.

