[extropy-chat] Re: Why bet only imaginary money?

[Brett Paatsch]

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2004, at 7:10 AM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
>
> > but all bets are not about nanotech.
> >
> >> Or am I missing something?
> >>
> > you are probably missing the fact that a public idea futures playing
> > with real money would be considered gambling without a license in lots
> > of places.  but i thought you were the lawyer, so you can tell me.  I
> > always thought that was the main obstacle.
>
> Why do people want a futures market anyway?  Aren't all the big
> technology players already in the the existing markets, so that anybody
> can invest in the technologies they want already?

I like transhumanist groups for their optimism but find them infuriating and
ultimately disappointing for their lack of pragmatism. I have the same
problem with religious believers. As people most believers are very human
and very likeable, as planners and investors and fashioners of better
futures
though, people who have too much of the vision and hope thing and not
enough practicality are massive wasters of their own time, of other peoples
time and most importantly to me of my time.

If it was possible to bet against some transhumanists who make wild
technological claims then their would be a way of winnowing out those
that know what they are talking about from those that don't. The scientists
would stand out from the pseudoscientists.

There would be a financial reason to correct other peoples homework
and give a blow by blow of the errors in it.  Without a financial reason
there is little reason to take the trouble of exposing thoroughgoing crap
as crap. One is perceived as being purely negative rather than of
providing a service. And yet it is a service to criticise ideas that cannot
possible succeed because it frees up resources and energy that otherwise
would have been wasted to be deployed into more promising areas.

Any transhumanist that makes a radical claim for technology that is
based on genuinely better understanding should be able to bet against
someone that is a sceptic and expect to win the bet.  If they are right
and do win then they achieve two things a) they have additional funds
for pursuing and implementing their idea and b) they have pursuaded
the sceptic.

If they are wrong then they may be embarassed into shutting the hell
up and they'd have to creep off and lick their wounds for a while, which
would be a good thing for encouraging critical thought in the rest.

I think that the truth is that most people have both good and bad ideas
in them and noble and ignoble traits. Making bets (investing real money)
against others that disagree with you can focus the critical faculties
around the subject of the bet.

Cryonics and molecular nanotechnology will not be developed at all
unless there are a series of practical milestones achieved along the
way to the ultimate goal. The very fact that cryonicists and molecular
nanotechnologists are in a minority means that most of the betters would
be betting against them in an open market and so if they are right they
could clean up and fund their research and convert those that would bet
against them.  Perhaps the same is true for those who are trying to
develop some forms of AI.

Over time I think a market or public betting system would make
transhumanists make more realistic plans. Those more practical would
acquire the wealth of those less practical. Those who didn't want to bet
wouldn't have to but they could still learn by watching. What would
emerge would be a sort of meritocracy of anlaytical and practical skill
but specifically in the area of technologies that are of interest to
transhumanists.

Transhumanism would be better and more effective for seeing off some
of the uncritical pseudoscientific beliefs.  A good way to tell what is real
and what is not is give those with opposing views the opportunity to
benefit from being right.

Brett Paatsch