[restalis]

You two debated this as a philosophical or even moral issue, but it changes everything when you look at it from the natural hazard prospective. It doesn't even have to be a subjective matter. Picture this - you know the climate change is happening and you understand that some colony of animals will surely vanish because of that if you wont do a thing about it. Doing something could mean just taking a few pair of animals and relocate them to a safer area. Do you think that the survival of such descending colony of animals mean anything (to anyone)? Who can argue that it won't be our time (and obligation) to reduce the risk of having the only known capable civilization residing on only one planet or galaxy?

[gcanyon]

For sure, but that's my point; "taking a few pair of animals and relocate them to a safer area" is not what this paper is discussing. A better parallel would be "take digital photos of the endangered animal and circulate them around the internet." The proposed method doesn't spread us -- it spreads teeny tiny machines we made, for no reason at all other than to say we did it. And long after we're gone, when the Sun has died, far away galaxies will be polluted with little machines, each containing a copy of some data about us.

[db48x]

Right, but it’s only a feasibility study. By definition these only study the minimum system that could accomplish the goal, which was to visit as many galaxies as possible. Given the mass budget and density of the data storage contemplated there’s no reason the probes couldn’t carry enough information to create real human colonies in the process of replicating themselves.

Fun story: https://www.fimfiction.net/story/368986/message-in-a-bottle