From max at maxmore.com Sat Jul 9 19:42:42 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:42:42 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 03:41:49 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:41:49 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: [Exi-la] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Max More's message of "Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:42:42 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> > Geoethical nanotechnology is the development and implementation under a > global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling molecules Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid I'll be rather suspicious that the word "Geoethical" and the phrase "global regulatory framework" are not biocompatible with my lunch, so tuning in to this "webcast" might cause me to lose it. It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global regulatory framework". Perry From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 04:11:13 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:11:13 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: [Exi-la] Webcast of the First Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:41 PM 7/9/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Geoethical nanotechnology is the development and implementation under a > > global regulatory framework of machines capable of assembling molecules > >Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid I'll be rather >suspicious that the word "Geoethical" and the phrase "global >regulatory framework" are not biocompatible with my lunch, so tuning >in to this "webcast" might cause me to lose it. > >It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian >approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global >regulatory framework". I'm not sure if she (Martine Rothblatt) ever wrote about libertarian approaches to the world. Where do you find this inconsistence Perry? And, why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and how the world can function in order to protect individuality and freedom. If you are referring to Max, and perhaps this is a long shot on my part, but if you are, then you would find that his eloquence has evolved, not declined. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 18:34:43 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:34:43 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] "Geoethical Nanotechnology" In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Natasha Vita-More's message of "Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:11:13 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87y88e8q7w.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> Natasha Vita-More writes: > > It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian > > approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global > > regulatory framework". [...] > why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political > theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to > intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and > how the world can function in order to protect individuality and > freedom. Why would I hang my future on such inadequate tools as reason and the scientific method, when no single method is substantially adequate to intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change? Why not try to absorb the best ideas from shitoism, scientology and astrology as well? Dismissing my view as just one "political theory" among many is, to me, rather similar to dismissing evolution as one theory among many equally valid ones (like creationism). The fact that you even bother to ask the question about why I "cling tightly" to my views shows you don't understand my views. I don't mean to offend, and I'm sure you did not mean to offend, but I suspect neither of us can help but offend the other. Our views are irreconcilable because there is a massive gap of method between them. For my part, I have a theory about how autonomous agents with bounded rationality interact. Based on that theory, one can make predictions about the world and attempt to falsify the theory. The attempts to falsify it have, so far, failed, thus giving me substantial reason to trust the theory. Moving forward from that trust in the theory, I've made predictions for myself about where efforts involving words like "Geoethical" and "global regulatory framework" lead. Thus, just like the doctor who has a definite view about the efficacy of rubbing linseed oil on the feet of someone with a staph infection versus giving them antibiotics, I have a definite view about what a "global regulatory regime" will do to the health of the world, and most especially, what it will do to (and not for) me. To you, of course, my views are just one among many sets of views you have heard. Indeed, I'm hardly the only person who claims my views are based on the scientific method and reason -- the Marxists claim similarly after all. Many other people have told you many other things, often quite contradictory things. Sadly, although you may think otherwise, you have chosen not to try to evaluate these views to assess their truth, but rather to pick based on other methods. Perhaps you embrace the ones that seemed most emotionally resonant to you, or perhaps the ones presented by the people who were most attractive, or perhaps the ones that you were told were true very early in your life. That you have done this is not particularly surprising -- many people do that sort of thing. That's why we have a majority of the world population that is religious, after all. Perhaps you take the fashionable view that one must seek "middle ground" -- that always sounds pleasing to the ear, and certainly is the careful thing to say at Washington cocktail parties. "We are in a new era -- we will need new methods!" sounds ever so euphonious. Were it not for one small thing -- reality -- there would be no need for a conflict between our views about what you dismiss so off-hand as mere "political theory". Reality, however, throws a small monkey wrench in the machine. "[...]reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. " -- Richard Feynman in his minority report on the Challenger Accident I see the system of the world as amenable to reason, and using that method, I've been convinced that there are rules about the way societies of interacting agents can function. Ideas like Pareto optimality do not depend on particular times and places, just as the laws of physics don't depend on particular times and places. One can predict, with near certainty, the probability amplitudes for particles using Quantum Mechanics. Using the principles of evolutionary theory, you can predict, with near certainty, that a mutation that prevents a creature from reproducing will not be passed on to offspring, regardless of what effect it might have on the survival of that particular organism. Similarly, I can predict that attempts to regulate the exchange of goods and services between voluntary actors necessarily reduce global utility. Similarly, I can predict that attempts to construct regulatory frameworks will necessarily have perverse consequences because they do not take into account, among other things, the fact that the regulators necessarily are independent actors with their own utility functions to maximize. This is not a mere "political theory". This is an understanding about how the world works. It is testable in the real world, as all good theories are. It makes falsifiable predictions, and those predictions come out correct. It says things like "if you try to `help the poor' by imposing price controls on apartments, you will get apartment shortages", and lo, it happens in the real world. It says "if you attempt to prevent people from selling liquor, all you will do is make liquor less safe and create violence", and lo, it happens. You can even conduct simple demonstrations to people in Econ 101 classes by handing out pens and sticks of gum to the students and allowing them to trade freely or constraining trade, and things work out just as predicted. Want to know what will happen if you print lots of money? You'll get inflation. Want to know what will happen if you set a minimum wage of $10 an hour? You'll get unemployment. Quite pathetically, I "cling" to this "political theory" -- "just one theory among many in a shifting world!" you insist. I am the sad man, the pathetic man, the man who tries to understand aerodynamics rather than waving my hands over a carpet and imagining it might float. I am the man who claims that regulation will not work because my stupid annoying theory which has been tested repeatedly tells me so. I get in the way of the progressive, modern viewpoint. I speak of utility functions, demand curves and other horrible abstractions, but what right minded person would want to speak of such things? They are annoying and unfair, not to mention boring. The "reality based community" tells us that we can't make a new law have any arbitrary effect we desire, because in the real world behavior is constrained, just as we can't make a mass in free space suddenly make a right angle turn. Horrible, unfair and annoying, isn't it? You have so many desires, and the world thwarts them! "If only the selfish would help Africa more!" you say. "If only that evil company would give their employees health insurance!" you think. "If only the government would just DO SOMETHING about poverty!" you cry. And yet, somehow, when the government forces people to do what you want rather than what they want, the bastards refuse to conform to your expectations. Perverse of them, isn't it? And, since you will not open your eyes, also inexplicable! To the person who asks how the world works, the world provides horrible limitations. They are forced to shake their head sadly at their friends' cocktail hour musings about how much better the world would be if only some pet law were passed. Their world has no such simple "magic wand" solutions. It is a boring world, a world of equations, and rules, and hard won insights. It is not the exciting world of the Live 8 concert where if we all only hold our hands and believe, a major global problem can be fixed while thrilling music is played. On the other hand, it is a world that has a serious advantage -- if you pay attention to it, the things you design might actually work. The person that understands the world is not completely powerless against it. While friends stand by, frustrated that no matter how often they chant at the carpet it does not float and whisk them to the other side of the world, the enlightened person sits down and studies physics and builds an airplane. This annoys their friends, who secretly call them a "geek" and sneer, but mysteriously they tend to ride the resulting airplanes none the less. At any rate, I wish you all great luck with your "Geoethical nanotechnology" conference and the search for a "global regulatory framework". I'm sure you will also make great progress on the squaring of circles using compass and straightedge alone, the factoring of prime numbers, and the curing of public health problems through nationalized health care. Remember always that the most important thing about the world is belief, and if you only believe hard enough, your fondest wishes will come true. And please, don't mind me. I'm naive. I don't understand people in the real world. I don't know how political power works, and have no idea what horrors people like you defend me from by putting a friendly, marketable face on unpalatable ideas like transhumanism. Proceed apace, and ignore the intrusion from the peanut gallery. "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination -- stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one million year old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?" -- Richard Feynman, in a footnote in "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" Perry From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 18:58:57 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Natasha Vita-More's message of "Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:24:45 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Natasha Vita-More writes: >>Perry and I therefore prefer to rely on *non*political approaches. >>They require more imagination sometimes, but on the other hand they >>cause fewer deaths. So we are disappointed to see Max now apparently >>willing to resort to the "easy" road of control by threat of violence. > > Are you stating that libertarianism is "non" political? Unfortunately, we lack the right words in our language. However, Anton is more or less saying that, and he's right. Science is not based on faith, and is therefore (to the scientist) distinct from religion. However, to a religious person, I suppose that science could be thought of as just another sort of religion. Libertarianism is not based on the idea of using political processes to effect change in society. As such, it is distinct from other "political" viewpoints in that it is, in fact, a non-political viewpoint -- it is the viewpoint that politics (taken narrowly as decision making via coercively enforced decisions) is in itself the problem. The libertarian "unasks" the question of what political means to use -- he consistently chooses non-political means. However, I suppose to someone who doesn't understand, libertarianism just looks like some sort of half-assed random collection of ideas and is no different from any other "political" viewpoint. > Please be careful not to make assumption about what Max does and does > not think without speaking directly to him. I know that at one time, Max happily called himself an anarchocapitalist. I also know that, at one time, the extropian view was an explicitly anarchocapitalist viewpoint. I can quote from early copies of "Extropy" magazine if you wish. I also know that Max now denies in public that Extropianism ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let alone anarchocapitalism (a counterfactual statement), and that you and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means. See, for example, the "Geoethical nanotechnology" conference, and its interest in "global regulatory" mechanisms to "manage" nanotechnology. Beyond that, of course, I know very little, but it *seems* as though he would no longer think of himself as a libertarian. > Yes, I would like to see libertarianism as an ethical theory rather > than a political theory, but unfortunately it is most widely known as > a political stance or position. Like most political position it falls > short because it is dogmatized in a stance that is unwilling to > negotiate. So many things in life are so terribly dogmatic. "I would very much like for there to be a God that created me, rather than random mutations mediated by natural selection. How horrible, then, of the biologists to insist that evolution is a fact, and to fail to compromise with me!" > Resolving conflicts and developing procedures for creating workable > solutions is about negotiation. There is no negotiation here. If you claim a regulation will help mankind, it is either true or false -- it is not subject to decision by negotiation. It is not some sort of aesthetic decision. It is not amenable to compromise any more than the laws of physics are amenable to compromise. Perhaps you claim that, dogmatically, we refuse to work with and mollify the people in power so that they will not crush us, poor weak stepchildren that we are, and so in fear of the boot coming down. If only we would talk with the "powerful" we would be so much safer! If so, I think there is substantial evidence that you are wrong. Either way, I don't see what needs "negotiating" here. -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com From levys at wlu.edu Sun Jul 10 18:55:31 2005 From: levys at wlu.edu (Simon Levy) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:55:31 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: [Exi-east] "Geoethical Nanotechnology" In-Reply-To: <87y88e8q7w.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87y88e8q7w.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <1121021731.32338.28.camel@dijkstra.cs.wlu.edu> Friends, Just a reminder: ExI-East and (to my knowledge) the other regional lists are strictly for soliciting/announcing get-togethers and other brief, regional event topics. So although I find this nanotech discussion interesting, I politely request that you remove ExI-East from the To: list. And I look forward to seeing you in person at Extropian/Transhumanist events. Thanks, Simon On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 14:34, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > Natasha Vita-More writes: > > > It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian > > > approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global > > > regulatory framework". > [...] > > why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political > > theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to > > intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and > > how the world can function in order to protect individuality and > > freedom. > > Why would I hang my future on such inadequate tools as reason and the > scientific method, when no single method is substantially adequate to > intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change? > Why not try to absorb the best ideas from shitoism, scientology and > astrology as well? > > Dismissing my view as just one "political theory" among many is, to > me, rather similar to dismissing evolution as one theory among many > equally valid ones (like creationism). > > The fact that you even bother to ask the question about why I "cling > tightly" to my views shows you don't understand my views. I don't mean > to offend, and I'm sure you did not mean to offend, but I suspect > neither of us can help but offend the other. Our views are > irreconcilable because there is a massive gap of method between > them. > > For my part, I have a theory about how autonomous agents with bounded > rationality interact. Based on that theory, one can make predictions > about the world and attempt to falsify the theory. The attempts to > falsify it have, so far, failed, thus giving me substantial reason > to trust the theory. Moving forward from that trust in the theory, > I've made predictions for myself about where efforts involving words > like "Geoethical" and "global regulatory framework" lead. Thus, just > like the doctor who has a definite view about the efficacy of rubbing > linseed oil on the feet of someone with a staph infection versus > giving them antibiotics, I have a definite view about what a "global > regulatory regime" will do to the health of the world, and most > especially, what it will do to (and not for) me. > > To you, of course, my views are just one among many sets of views you > have heard. Indeed, I'm hardly the only person who claims my views are > based on the scientific method and reason -- the Marxists claim > similarly after all. Many other people have told you many other > things, often quite contradictory things. Sadly, although you may > think otherwise, you have chosen not to try to evaluate these views to > assess their truth, but rather to pick based on other methods. Perhaps > you embrace the ones that seemed most emotionally resonant to you, or > perhaps the ones presented by the people who were most attractive, or > perhaps the ones that you were told were true very early in your life. > That you have done this is not particularly surprising -- many people > do that sort of thing. That's why we have a majority of the world > population that is religious, after all. Perhaps you take the > fashionable view that one must seek "middle ground" -- that always > sounds pleasing to the ear, and certainly is the careful thing to say > at Washington cocktail parties. "We are in a new era -- we will need > new methods!" sounds ever so euphonious. > > Were it not for one small thing -- reality -- there would be no need > for a conflict between our views about what you dismiss so off-hand as > mere "political theory". Reality, however, throws a small monkey > wrench in the machine. > > "[...]reality must take precedence over public relations, for > nature cannot be fooled. " > -- Richard Feynman in his minority report on the Challenger Accident > > I see the system of the world as amenable to reason, and using that > method, I've been convinced that there are rules about the way > societies of interacting agents can function. Ideas like Pareto > optimality do not depend on particular times and places, just as the > laws of physics don't depend on particular times and places. > > One can predict, with near certainty, the probability amplitudes for > particles using Quantum Mechanics. Using the principles of > evolutionary theory, you can predict, with near certainty, that a > mutation that prevents a creature from reproducing will not be passed > on to offspring, regardless of what effect it might have on the > survival of that particular organism. Similarly, I can predict that > attempts to regulate the exchange of goods and services between > voluntary actors necessarily reduce global utility. Similarly, I can > predict that attempts to construct regulatory frameworks will > necessarily have perverse consequences because they do not take into > account, among other things, the fact that the regulators necessarily > are independent actors with their own utility functions to maximize. > > This is not a mere "political theory". This is an understanding about > how the world works. It is testable in the real world, as all good > theories are. It makes falsifiable predictions, and those predictions > come out correct. It says things like "if you try to `help the poor' > by imposing price controls on apartments, you will get apartment > shortages", and lo, it happens in the real world. It says "if you > attempt to prevent people from selling liquor, all you will do is make > liquor less safe and create violence", and lo, it happens. You can > even conduct simple demonstrations to people in Econ 101 classes by > handing out pens and sticks of gum to the students and allowing them > to trade freely or constraining trade, and things work out just as > predicted. Want to know what will happen if you print lots of money? > You'll get inflation. Want to know what will happen if you set a > minimum wage of $10 an hour? You'll get unemployment. > > Quite pathetically, I "cling" to this "political theory" -- "just one > theory among many in a shifting world!" you insist. > > I am the sad man, the pathetic man, the man who tries to understand > aerodynamics rather than waving my hands over a carpet and imagining > it might float. I am the man who claims that regulation will not work > because my stupid annoying theory which has been tested repeatedly > tells me so. I get in the way of the progressive, modern viewpoint. I > speak of utility functions, demand curves and other horrible > abstractions, but what right minded person would want to speak of such > things? They are annoying and unfair, not to mention boring. The > "reality based community" tells us that we can't make a new law have > any arbitrary effect we desire, because in the real world behavior is > constrained, just as we can't make a mass in free space suddenly make > a right angle turn. > > Horrible, unfair and annoying, isn't it? You have so many desires, and > the world thwarts them! "If only the selfish would help Africa more!" > you say. "If only that evil company would give their employees health > insurance!" you think. "If only the government would just DO SOMETHING > about poverty!" you cry. And yet, somehow, when the government forces > people to do what you want rather than what they want, the bastards > refuse to conform to your expectations. Perverse of them, isn't it? > And, since you will not open your eyes, also inexplicable! > > To the person who asks how the world works, the world provides > horrible limitations. They are forced to shake their head sadly at > their friends' cocktail hour musings about how much better the world > would be if only some pet law were passed. Their world has no such simple > "magic wand" solutions. It is a boring world, a world of equations, > and rules, and hard won insights. It is not the exciting world of the > Live 8 concert where if we all only hold our hands and believe, a > major global problem can be fixed while thrilling music is played. On > the other hand, it is a world that has a serious advantage -- if you > pay attention to it, the things you design might actually work. > > The person that understands the world is not completely powerless > against it. While friends stand by, frustrated that no matter how > often they chant at the carpet it does not float and whisk them to the > other side of the world, the enlightened person sits down and studies > physics and builds an airplane. This annoys their friends, who > secretly call them a "geek" and sneer, but mysteriously they tend to > ride the resulting airplanes none the less. > > At any rate, I wish you all great luck with your "Geoethical > nanotechnology" conference and the search for a "global regulatory > framework". I'm sure you will also make great progress on the squaring > of circles using compass and straightedge alone, the factoring of > prime numbers, and the curing of public health problems through > nationalized health care. Remember always that the most important > thing about the world is belief, and if you only believe hard enough, > your fondest wishes will come true. > > And please, don't mind me. I'm naive. I don't understand people in the > real world. I don't know how political power works, and have no idea > what horrors people like you defend me from by putting a friendly, > marketable face on unpalatable ideas like transhumanism. Proceed > apace, and ignore the intrusion from the peanut gallery. > > "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - > mere globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert > night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of > the heavens stretches my imagination -- stuck on this carousel my > little eye can catch one million year old light. A vast > pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the > meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a > little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any > artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present > not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if > he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane > and ammonia must be silent?" > -- Richard Feynman, in a footnote in "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" > > > Perry > _______________________________________________ > exi-east mailing list > exi-east at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/exi-east -- Simon D. Levy Assistant Professor Computer Science Department Washington & Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 540-458-8419 (voice) 540-458-8255 (fax) levys at wlu.edu http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 20:31:46 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:31:46 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Hi Perry, Just to close and respect Simon's wishes let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. Anyway, let's discuss off list and see if we can resolve some misconceptions and soften your blows, which frankly are more like a lynching than from a rational aim. Regardless I'm glad that you speak so candidly. My best to all, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 21:29:18 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:29:18 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Natasha Vita-More's message of "Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:31:46 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Natasha Vita-More writes: > let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. I'm sure I am. I'm told so more than often enough. .pm From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 21:34:39 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:34:39 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710163338.0289d498@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:29 PM 7/10/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Natasha Vita-More writes: > > let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. > >I'm sure I am. I'm told so more than often enough. I have that same characteristic. But it is one that leaves ample room for discernment and growth. N Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Wed Jul 13 02:37:58 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:58 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Wed Jul 13 04:42:43 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-announce] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Max More's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:58 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Max More writes: > Before I address the specifics I want to say that your statements perturb > me because I hold authenticity as a core value. I have always strived to > act and speak authentically, even when it made me very unpopular. To be > accused of pretending to be other than who I am, to be called coy, > deceptive, disingenuous, and so on, is shocking to me. It is certainly > not something I take lightly, especially when the accusation comes not > from some random ignoramus, but from someone such as yourself. Actually, I didn't refer to you in such terms -- you never replied to any of this until now, so obviously I couldn't be making any claims about what you said. I was referring entirely to _Natasha's_ comments, which I think were, if anything, astonishingly indirect. If she had come out and said something like "Max intends to argue against government regulation of nanotechnology at this conference" or what have you, I wouldn't make any such statement -- but instead she avoided saying any such thing in reply after reply. I note that your own reply is, if not absolutely clear, certainly not evasive in the same way. In any case, I'll state my main issue pretty briefly and clearly. At the time I started using the term "Extropian", it was pretty clearly linked in the minds of almost everyone else I knew who used the term, including (I believe) you, with anarchocapitalist ideals. In the interim, the term, as promoted by ExI, has very strongly ceased to mean that, and appears to have come to mean (as promoted by ExI) "Transhumanist" in some much more generic way. For a lot of us, this is a substantial disappointment. The "Extropian Principles" were drafted substantially after the term came to be widely used by a significant sized group of people. So far as I can tell, that group had a pretty clear idea that what distinguished the "Extropian" subset from the "Transhumanist" superset was a strong commitment to libertarianism. (Indeed, otherwise, why did one need a new term? FM-2030 had already pushed "Transhuman" as the word for the superset idea.) I think many of us would have been rather disappointed if we had thought "Spontaneous Order" was chosen for any reason other than the fact that "Best Do It So" was a neat mnemonic, and we would have been surprised to learn that it implied anything other than a strong libertarian commitment. Here it is, many years later, and as it stands, I note that the word "libertarian" only appears once on ExI's web site, in a denial, to whit: [pardon the light editing...] http://www.extropy.org/About.htm 1. Does ExI support democracy? 1. Does ExI support democracy? 1. Yes. [...] 2. Is ExI a libertarian organization? 2. No. Extropy Institute has always been transpolitical in its search for the best means for dealing with the structure and affairs of governments worldwide. ExI has never promoted any political party or position. Issues concerning the future must be addressed outside the box of political positioning and political dogma. Note the "ExI has *never*..." ...that seems like a fairly clear repudiation of the ideas that many of us started in this whole business with, and a denial that they were ever part of the mix. If it isn't, I'm not sure how. I've seen lots of other statements in other places to the same effect. Much of the mail I exchanged with Natasha a few days ago (most of which was *not* public -- that stopped early on, after Simon's comments) indicated that she very clearly believed that calling ones self a libertarian was somehow a bad thing, and she claimed to be "transpolitical", a term that ExI seems to claim as well (see above). In the email I exchanged with her, I quoted you as saying that you no longer considered yourself to be a libertarian, either. So, what's the general issue here? Disappointment covers it. > My specific responses to these statements: > "You and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means." > > How do you know whether -- if those folks *do* coercive means -- > that we hang out with them *happily*? Rather than with, say, > discomfort, reluctance, out of a sense of responsibility for > blunting their effect, etc? You are right, I have no idea -- I only know you seem to voluntarily associate yourself with them and seem to promote their conferences and such without terribly much in the way of public disclaimer as to your take on such conferences and the role you play at them. In any case, however, in the half dozen odd email exchanges Natasha and I had, she never bothered to use terms like the ones you just did, such as "discomfort" or "reluctance". Perhaps your views and hers are not the same, but again, ExI clearly seems to distance itself from libertarian ideals and calls itself "transpolitical" these days, so how is one to know? > On the specific matter of the Geoethics seminar: You don't know what I'm > going to say about the "global regulatory framework". (Nor do I know what > the organizer means by that.) And yet you folks promoted the conference, without the least comment about its possible spin. I might have felt a wee bit more uncomfortable promoting a conference that mentions a suspicious term right off the bat, especially when I don't know the organizer's meaning. > Why assume I will favor lots of government regulation? Natasha never bothered to state your position when I asked her directly and indirectly, and you guys were promoting a conference that itself states it promotes a "global regulatory regime", so what was I to think? It would have been simple enough to be direct in correcting any misapprehensions I had, which you have (generally) done in your own message. As I indicated in a private mail message to her, being indirect, coy and non-responsive to questions tends to make someone believe you are trying to hide an answer you don't think the interlocutor would like to hear. > "Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote > lovingly of anarchism" > I do not pretend that, and never have, neither to others nor > to myself. On what basis do you suggest otherwise? Well, Natasha said things in private mail with enormous ambiguity associated with them -- it would probably be unseemly for me to quote all of them because the mail was private, but I'll include a few paragraphs here. She concluded, after I pointed out that you had written some pretty spectacular anarchist essays, with this: How old was he when he was an anarchocapitalist? Was he a "college" student? Would he not have grown since his early days like most college students? Why not trust that Max has made the right decision for the benefit and purpose of extropy? Why not learn from what he has learned? Do you think he has sat in a box for the past 15+ years not growing and experiencing life? which would seem to be some sort of plea that we ignore your "youthful folly" in the matter, though I will agree that she no longer seemed by the end of the exchanges to have been denying/avoiding the fact that you were an anarchist at one time, and substituted instead a sort of (apparent) embarrassment about it. > The only thing I can think of that might give you that impression was > part of what I said in the NeoFiles interview last year. I said: "Even > the earliest version of the Principles did not, in fact, enclose a > strong belief in a libertarian pro-free enterprise politics." I stand by > what I said there. You may be mixing up the views that appeared in > Extropy magazine (including my own views) with the essential ideas that > were expressed in the Extropian Principles. ...not to mention the editorial viewpoint explanation in issue #1, which I quoted to Natasha and which explicitly lists libertarianism as the political viewpoint of the magazine. You have to remember that to most of us, "Extropian" was a label for a community, which came significantly before the formally stated "Principles", and "Extropy" was first and most prominently a magazine that had brought that community together, and only many years later was it principally part of the name of ExI -- indeed, it was years before there *was* an ExI. > The Principles never did require a strong belief in libertarianism as a > particular political philosophy. That's not how the rest of us interpreted the whole thing... > Part of the disagreement may be that, in your mind, "extropy" > *essentially* implied libertarianism, even anarchocapitalism, whereas in > my mind it essentially embodied the freedom and ability to change, to > improve, and to work freely with others for these goals. It implied > libertarianism only *contingently*. I read that as a sort of retroactive re-reading of what the whole thing was about. In the beginning, there was, of course, a magazine. Extropy, "Vaccine for Future Shock", "Introductory Issue", No. 1, Fall 1988. In this context, I read "Extropy" to mean "the editorial view of the magazine": _Extropy_ [emphasis in original] takes the point of view that [...] the most efficient economic and political systems are those that maximize human liberty. Thus the best economic systems are free market, and the best political systems libertarian. That's hardly the only quote I can use, but I'm trying to be brief here. Virtually every issue at the start touched on it though, and one early anarchism issue was particularly devoted to it. Then there was, of course, a mailing list. This was the announcement for that mailing list, sent August 19, 1991, which as I recall I ran by you before sending (and which you didn't seem to have occasion to disagree with at the start): Extropians is devoted to the discussion and development of Extropian ideas. The term "Extropian" was coined by the journal "Extropy", a publication devoted to Extropian philosophy, and this list is a spinoff of the journal. Extropians may be roughly described as those simultaneously interested in anarchocapitalist politics, cryonics (and other life extension techniques), the technological extension of human intelligence and perception, nanotechnology, spontaneous orders, and a number of other related ideas. If you are an Extropian, the concept that these are all related topics will seem natural. All Extropians (and those who suspect that they are Extropians) are invited to join. Then there was a community, and it built up surprisingly quickly once we had the mailing list, thanks to the viral spread of memes in the internet, and that community was about as solidly anarchocapitalist as these things get, and what remained was tiny minority of libertarians who leaned very strongly that way but weren't 100% sure. As I recall, a big attraction at the 5th anniversary "Extropaganza" party was Robin Hanson (then without fame in the outside world but now a pretty well known economist) discussing anarchocapitalist criminal justice systems in an overpacked room on Mark's lower floor. (The rest of the house, many joked, was a Temporary Autonomous Zone, after the name of the book by Hakkim Bey, and everyone of course remembers Romana and Jeff as The State and The Taxpayer.) Anyway, somewhere between the time that I bailed out of close contact with everyone because I had too much to do, and now, we've gotten to the point where the President of the organization that has the name "Extropy" branded on it calls herself "transpolitical" and chides me for being a libertarian thusly: . . . why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and how the world can function in order to protect individuality and freedom. and What is truly sad is that anyone, including yourself, would stay pigeonholed in thinking. So, something, clearly, has changed about the community in question, given that we used to kick people off the mailing list for saying things like that because we didn't want to bother people with flame wars about such a basic assumption as libertarianism (let alone anarchism). Indeed, in response to my assertion that the group had been very strongly and foundationally anarchocapitalist at one time, she said: I do not think you are correct about extropian. Perhaps there were a lot of you who believed that and made it so for yourselves, but I see no evidence of it being true. If so, I would never have joined ExI. Why? Because such a tact would positions its members and I do not like positioning or labeling. I find both counter productive to individuality, and on this I speak strongly and directly and completely. Labeling is contrary to individuality. It is like censoring freedom of thought and freedom of action. Perhaps you yourself have been completely above board about all of this. I apologize if, in my shock at your wife's messages, I overstepped and made some excessively broad remarks of my own. My intent was never to cause anyone any pain or spread enmity. However, the fact remains that you (apparently) now disown the term "libertarian": I am not a libertarian, unless you take a generously broad view of the term. and that the organization as a whole now denies that it has any sort of libertarian bent or focus, and claims to support democracy (something I don't myself support, although I'll grudgingly participate in things like voting regardless of the possible sanction for the system that implies.) > Perry, what are your intentions in making the claims that you've made? > Are you trying to damage my reputation? Simply set the facts straight? > Express your feelings? Something else? I suppose I'd like my label back. I have a bunch of friends who used to enjoy using the label and would like to use it again -- we're very tired of having labels taken out from under us (we liked "Liberal" before the Fabians corrupted it, for example). I know Natasha doesn't like labels -- labeling being, in her opinion (expressed above) contrary to individuality -- and so perhaps you folks aren't sufficiently attached to it to want to make further use of it. I'm sure we won't mind if the label arrives somewhat soiled -- we can have it cleaned and repainted ourselves. > Does my account make sense to you? Well, so far as it goes, I think it is fine. I have no particular urge to alter your reputation, though it would appear that your spouse does and perhaps you should have a talk with her about it. I also have no particular urge to be in a fight with you or to be your enemy -- indeed I imagine I'd rather enjoy having dinner with you again someday. However, it does appear that we've really gone in separate directions here. > Does anything seem to be missing? Only things that are largely of personal interest. > If so, what would it take to convince you that I am not deceptive or > inauthentic? Again, let me emphasize that I was responding entirely to Natasha's comments and not to yours, you having made none up to now. I stand by my comment that I found her email coy and unresponsive for the most part, which was rather frustrating since I kept calling (I thought) for clarity and kept being replied to with unenlightening things like: Just to close and respect Simon's wishes let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. I will state, unequivocally, that your own message on this has not been ambiguous and uninformative in the same way, and perhaps reflects a genuine viewpoint about the history of the term "Extropian", albeit one which I and many others do not share. -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com