/sci/ - Science & Math

dude you some kind of freak? wtf.

>>8431907
Well, if your species as a whole doesn't take survival over grandeur, it may often wind up like all those corpses as the top of mount Everest.

Besides, while we explore Everest's peak and Antarctica, we don't try to set up large scale civilization there, cuz it's too impractical with no return. Thus, even we have limits to how much we're willing to violate practicality for pure adventure. Colonization, you have a survival motive for whether you're adventurous or not, but colonizing everything you can regardless of the cost or lack of return, that's just not done, as we see in those examples. Now, if we overpopulate we may *have* to fix and colonize Antarctica someday, but we're talking of an immortal species that, consequently, has a population cap. Once it colonizes a few systems spread sufficiently apart, it can't ensure its survival any further by colonizing more.

There's the exploration motive, yes. Presumably, a species does have to be curious to reach those heights, even then there's something else to consider...

At some point, predictive technologies and a thorough understand of physics, coupled with that immorality, makes exploration pointless. You already know, or can simulate, everything this universe can produce from every possible interaction of its four forces and twelve particles. So you've no motivation to explore - if anything, you might escape to a more complex virtual reality that, unlike the universe that created you, might be capable of generating things you can't predict or imagine. At some point, the regular universe is going to be as boring and predictable to your average enhanced intellect as Minecraft is to us - nothing but repetitious combinations of the same old blocks.